Overview
- The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, a case testing whether migrants stopped in Mexico at a port of entry have legally “arrived in” the United States for asylum purposes.
- Several conservative justices pressed challengers on where “arrival” begins and their questions suggested support for the administration’s view that asylum rights attach only after a person crosses the border.
- Liberal justices questioned the policy’s legality and practicality, noting it is currently rescinded and warning that refusing processing at the line could push people to try illegal crossings.
- The administration argued that “arrives in” means setting foot on U.S. soil and called metering a needed tool to manage surges, while lower courts, including a divided Ninth Circuit in 2024, ruled the turnback practice unlawful.
- The policy, known as metering, let agents cap entries during crowding and left many people stuck in risky border towns, and a decision expected by late June could reshape access to asylum at official crossings.