The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could determine whether asylum seekers physically present at a U.S. port of entry have a legal right to be processed, regardless of which side of the border line they stand on.
The case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, centers on a policy from President Donald Trump’s first term that allowed Customs and Border Protection officers to physically turn migrants away before they could set foot on U.S. soil. If the Court sides with the government, border officials could again use this approach to manage migration at ports of entry along the southern border.
The legal dispute traces back to a 2019 memorandum that formalized what became known as the metering or “turn back” policy. Under that policy, CBP officers stationed at border crossings refused to process asylum seekers who walked up to ports of entry, operating under the legal theory that a migrant must already be inside the United States to qualify for asylum consideration. A 2020 investigation by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General found that officers turned away up to 680 migrants per day under the policy.
Federal courts have repeatedly pushed back on that legal theory. A district court ruled the policy violated administrative procedure law, finding that CBP had a duty to inspect and process asylum seekers who arrive at ports of entry. A split panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling in 2024. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, and in November the Court agreed to take the case.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in briefs that the plain meaning of statutory language supports the government’s position. “In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders,” Sauer wrote. “An alien thus does not ‘arrive in’ the United States while he is still in Mexico.”
Sauer also framed the 9th Circuit’s decision as a threat to executive authority over immigration. He argued that allowing courts to mandate CBP processing at ports of entry strips the president of a critical tool for managing border surges and preventing overcrowding at crossing points. He noted that prior to the litigation, border officials had used physical presence at the boundary line as a routine management mechanism during high-migration periods.
Attorneys representing Al Otro Lado, the nonprofit immigrant rights organization that brought the original lawsuit, have countered that the government’s reading of the statute guts the core purpose of U.S. asylum law. Melissa Crow, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff organization, put the human cost in direct terms. “For people fleeing persecution the stakes are literally life and death,” Crow said.
That framing carries particular weight given what the turn-back policy produced on the ground. Migrants who were refused processing at ports of entry often waited for months in Mexican border cities, where human rights organizations documented serious dangers including kidnapping, extortion, and violence. The policy effectively outsourced risk to some of the most vulnerable people in the asylum system, many of them families and individuals who had already fled violence in Central America and elsewhere.
The outcome of Noem v. Al Otro Lado will carry consequences well beyond this administration. A ruling in favor of the government would hand any future executive broad authority to station officers at the border line and physically block asylum processing, regardless of what federal statute requires. A ruling for Al Otro Lado would reaffirm that statutory obligations to inspect and process arriving migrants apply at the port of entry itself, not only after someone has crossed into U.S. territory.
For students following immigration policy, this case is a stark example of how legal definitions with seemingly narrow scope can produce massive real-world effects. The question of where a border ends is not abstract. It determines who gets a hearing, and who gets turned away.
A decision is expected before the Court’s term ends this summer.
