Supreme Court Likely To Revive Obama-Era Rule on Asylum-Seekers news
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently consented to reevaluate a longstanding immigration policy that denied asylum seekers entry at ports along the southern U.S. border. President Donald Trump requested the justices to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that deemed the policy unlawful.
The Biden administration terminated the practice referred to by the government as “metering.” The Trump administration seeks to maintain flexibility while intensifying its immigration enforcement efforts.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer stated in November, “The Constitution assigns the authority to regulate the border to the political branches, rather than the judiciary.” Sauer stated that the decision below improperly undermines Congress’ authority to establish asylum policy, referencing its ties to active policies. It also ‘significantly encroaches upon the executive branch’s authority to regulate the nation’s borders.’
The nonprofit immigrant rights organization, Al Otro Lado, in conjunction with 13 asylum-seekers who initiated the lawsuit central to the dispute in 2017, expressed their endorsement of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and are ready to uphold it before the Supreme Court.
“The government’s turnback policy constituted an unlawful strategy to evade these obligations by physically obstructing asylum-seekers at ports of entry and hindering their ability to cross the border for protection,” stated attorneys for Al Otro Lado and the asylum-seekers. “At-risk families, children, and adults escaping persecution were left in hazardous circumstances, where they encountered violent attacks, abduction, and mortality.”
Sauer stated, “According to the rationale of the decision below, [Customs and Border Patrol] was prohibited from obstructing the entry of an individual who arrived at the border without a prior appointment.” An alien could assert that he has arrived ‘in the United States,’ thereby necessitating government inspection and processing of his asylum application, which would enable him to circumvent the queue.
The asylum-seekers contested the government’s petition, asserting that the appellate court’s decision pertained solely to a specific group of migrants.
Kelsi Brown Corkran, an attorney with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, stated, “While the current administration’s border policies are subject to impending legal challenges, none of the plaintiffs’ assertions in those cases hinge on the issue raised by the petition here.” The court’s determination of the issue at hand would consequently constitute little more than an advisory opinion.
The Justice Department refrained from commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision to consider its appeal. The White House directed inquiries regarding the reinstatement of the metering policy to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not respond to questions concerning the potential revival of the policy by the Trump administration.
“Our attorneys have unequivocally articulated that the Trump administration has consistently upheld the explicit interpretation of federal law and fundamental logic in this matter from the outset,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated in an email that contained a link to the government’s petition. “We anticipate presenting our case to the Supreme Court.”
The Immigration and Nationality Act stipulates that individuals in the United States, irrespective of their location, have the right to apply for asylum if they can establish a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.
In 2016, in response to an influx of Haitian asylum-seekers at San Ysidro port of entry in Southern California, the Obama administration mandated that border agents refuse entry to newly arriving migrants.
Two years later, the Department of Homeland Security formally instituted the policy, supplying all southern border ports with “metering guidance.”
Under the 2018 policy, border agents were assigned the responsibility of identifying prospective asylum-seekers and actively obstructing their entry into U.S. territory.
In 2019, the Trump administration implemented a new barrier for migrants, declaring that individuals who traversed one or more countries prior to reaching the U.S. would be disqualified from asylum unless they had first pursued protection in at least one of those transit countries.
A lower court has certified a class for asylum seekers who arrived prior to Trump’s transit rule, issuing an injunction that reinstates claims previously denied under the 2019 policy.
The class facilitated the advancement of the case subsequent to the Biden administration’s abrogation of the metering policy in 2021. The transit rule was ultimately rescinded in 2023.
In 2022, the lower court issued a definitive ruling, imposing a permanent injunction that barred the government from enforcing the asylum prohibitions against that particular group. The court confirmed that individuals in this category possessed the right to seek asylum in accordance with prior policy directives.
The Ninth Circuit assessed the legality of the metering policy to ascertain whether the remedy should be maintained.
The panel adjudicated in favor of the asylum-seekers, rejecting the government’s assertions that migrants denied entry at ports were not unlawfully deprived of asylum under the metering policy due to their absence from the U.S.
The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, arguing that alternative solutions, like the Biden-era CBP One app designed for asylum appointment scheduling for migrants, could be at risk.
Spencer Pratt EXPOSED LA’s Biggest Problem LIVE ON AIR… and The View Completely LOST IT! What was supposed to be another harmless celebrity interview on The View suddenly turned into one of the most uncomfortable political moments television has seen in months. Spencer Pratt walked onto the stage as a former reality TV star, but by the time the segment ended, viewers across the country were asking why he sounded more connected to everyday life in Los Angeles than the people challenging him. The conversation quickly shifted away from celebrity gossip and exploded into arguments about homelessness, drugs, crime, media narratives, and the visible collapse many residents say they experience daily in California cities. Then came the AI ad controversy, the viral comments about human waste in LA, and the moment even the hosts appeared caught off guard by how strongly audiences were reacting online. Now people are wondering whether this interview accidentally exposed something much bigger than one mayoral race. Read the full story below in the comments. - Trends.newsonline.biz
Spencer Pratt walked onto The View looking like exactly the kind of guest the hosts assumed they could easily handle.
A former reality television personality from The Hills running for mayor of Los Angeles sounded, on paper, like the perfect lighthearted daytime television segment.
A few jokes, some playful skepticism, maybe a quick conversation about celebrity culture, and then everybody moves on.
That was clearly the expectation. Instead, the interview spiraled into something completely different. Because within minutes, the atmosphere shifted from entertainment to genuine political discomfort.
The hosts initially approached Pratt with the familiar mixture of amusement and disbelief often reserved for celebrities entering politics.
Questions about his financial struggles, reality television fame, and lack of political experience came quickly.
But Pratt never tried to present himself as a polished politician. That changed the dynamic immediately.
Instead of sounding scripted, he sounded frustrated. Not celebrity frustrated. Citizen frustrated. And that emotional difference mattered far more than many people expected.
Pratt explained that he never intended to become politically active. For years, he largely avoided public political battles entirely.
According to him, the turning point came after wildfires devastated parts of Los Angeles, including the loss of his own home.
That transformed the conversation emotionally. Because suddenly this was no longer a reality TV personality playing politics for attention.
This became someone speaking from personal anger after watching what he believed was catastrophic government failure.
And viewers connected with that instantly. Pratt repeatedly framed his campaign around what he described as “common sense” issues facing ordinary Los Angeles residents.
Crime, homelessness, drug addiction, public disorder, deteriorating infrastructure, and basic safety concerns became the focus of nearly everything he discussed.
Then the conversation intensified. Pratt began describing conditions throughout parts of Los Angeles in blunt detail.
Human waste on sidewalks. Fentanyl needles near parks. Drug addicts roaming around schools. Public disorder becoming normalized in neighborhoods where families once felt safe.
The room noticeably tightened. Because regardless of political ideology, millions of Americans have already seen similar footage circulating online for years.
Videos of open drug use, theft, homeless encampments, and collapsing public order have dominated social media discussions surrounding California cities.
Pratt simply described those realities directly on national television. And emotionally, that landed much harder than many expected.
The hosts attempted pushing back by questioning his qualifications and political experience. But Pratt immediately flipped the criticism back toward establishment leadership.
When questioned about lacking a law degree or city management experience, Pratt sarcastically joked about earning legal credentials online before pointing out that Karen Bass herself had never previously managed a city before becoming mayor.
The exchange resonated online because Pratt did not sound like a polished political strategist trying to win an argument.
He sounded authentic. Messy at times, certainly. But authentic. And in modern politics, authenticity often matters more emotionally than perfect credentials.
That became increasingly obvious as the interview continued. The biggest turning point may have come when Pratt discussed how ordinary residents are reacting to conditions in Los Angeles.
He described even lifelong Democrats becoming frustrated after personally experiencing the city’s visible decline. One story in particular exploded online afterward.
Pratt described his sister accidentally driving through human waste in Los Angeles and being unable to remove the smell from her car despite repeated cleanings.
The story sounded absurd enough to become instantly memorable. But that was exactly why it spread so rapidly.
Pratt communicated through vivid personal imagery rather than policy jargon. People could immediately picture the situation because many viewers had already experienced similar moments themselves or seen comparable footage online.
That emotional relatability made his comments far more powerful than traditional political talking points. Meanwhile, the hosts appeared increasingly uncomfortable as the audience reaction online grew stronger.
At several moments, the panel attempted balancing criticism of Pratt while simultaneously acknowledging public frustration with conditions in Los Angeles.
That contradiction became noticeable. One moment Pratt was dismissed as a reality TV celebrity lacking qualifications.
The next moment, hosts admitted many residents genuinely feel unsafe or frustrated with visible deterioration across parts of California cities.
Viewers immediately noticed the inconsistency. And that inconsistency fueled much of the viral reaction afterward.
The interview escalated even further once discussion turned toward artificial intelligence campaign advertisements Pratt had shared online.
The ads used AI-generated comic-book imagery featuring political figures and exaggerated dystopian themes criticizing California leadership.
Critics labeled the ads dangerous, misleading, and inflammatory. But many viewers reacted very differently. Online audiences began mocking what they perceived as establishment media becoming more emotionally disturbed by AI-generated memes than by actual urban decline visible across major cities.
That comparison quickly spiraled into broader criticism of media credibility itself. People began reposting old clips from 2020 showing reporters standing in front of burning buildings during riots while describing events as “mostly peaceful.”
Those comparisons intensified accusations of media double standards. To many viewers, establishment media figures appeared willing to minimize real-world disorder while simultaneously treating exaggerated political memes as major threats.
Whether fair or unfair, that perception deeply shaped online reaction to the interview. And perception matters enormously in modern politics.
Because once audiences begin believing media institutions selectively frame outrage depending on ideological convenience, trust erodes rapidly.
That erosion of trust became one of the central emotional themes surrounding Pratt’s appearance. At multiple points, even the hosts themselves seemed unsure how aggressively to challenge him without appearing disconnected from realities many viewers already believe exiSt.
That tension became visible. And the more visible it became, the stronger Pratt’s anti-establishment image grew online.
Ironically, attempts to portray him as unserious often strengthened his appeal instead. Especially among frustrated voters exhausted by carefully scripted political language and media narratives they no longer trust completely.
Pratt also benefited from sounding unusually direct compared to traditional politicians. He criticized leaders for prioritizing press conferences, rhetoric, and ideological branding while ordinary residents increasingly worry about basic quality-of-life issues.
His argument was simple. People want safe parks. Functioning streets. Clean neighborhoods. Responsive emergency services.
And many feel local governments have failed to provide those basics despite enormous tax burdens.
That message cuts across ideological lines more effectively than many traditional partisan arguments. Which explains why the interview spread far beyond normal celebrity gossip audiences.
This stopped being about Spencer Pratt specifically. Instead, he increasingly became a symbol for something much larger: frustration with political institutions, distrust toward media narratives, anger over visible urban decline, and exhaustion with ideological battles replacing practical governance.
That emotional undercurrent explains why the segment resonated so strongly online. Millions of viewers did not suddenly become passionate Spencer Pratt supporters overnight.
But many recognized something emotionally familiar in what he described. And perhaps most importantly, many viewers believed he was speaking honestly rather than strategically.
That distinction matters tremendously in modern political culture. Especially during a time when large portions of the public increasingly view politicians, media personalities, and institutions as scripted, artificial, or disconnected from ordinary life.
By the end of the interview, the original premise had completely collapsed. What was supposed to be a harmless celebrity segment accidentally became one of the most viral political media moments of the year.
Not because Spencer Pratt dominated through traditional political skill. But because millions of Americans quietly saw pieces of their own frustrations reflected in what he said.
And judging by the reaction afterward, establishment media figures may have underestimated just how powerful that frustration has become.
