The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a landmark case that could fundamentally reshape how asylum seekers access protection at U.S. ports of entry, and the decision could have far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement and humanitarian obligations at the border.
On Monday, November 17, 2025, the Court granted review in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, a case challenging the legality of the controversial “metering” policy that turned away asylum seekers at the southern border before they could formally enter the United States and request protection.
The Trump administration argues the lower court ruling has caused significant interference with executive authority to manage the southern border, while immigrant rights advocates contend the case will determine whether border officials can effectively nullify federal asylum protections at ports of entry.
As Jennifer Behm, Esq., Partner at Berardi Immigration Law, explains:
“This case strikes at the heart of asylum law in America. The question isn’t just about policy; it’s about whether federal law protecting asylum seekers can be enforced when people present themselves at our borders seeking safety.”
Background: What Is “Metering” and Why Is It Controversial?
In 2016, responding to increased numbers of Haitian immigrants seeking asylum in San Ysidro outside San Diego, the Department of Homeland Security initiated a policy known as “metering,” where Customs and Border Patrol officials turned back asylum seekers before they entered the United States.
The policy expanded to all ports of entry across the U.S.-Mexico border and was formalized in a 2018 memorandum.
Under metering, asylum seekers who arrived at official ports of entry were told to wait, sometimes for weeks or months, before being allowed to enter U.S. territory and formally request asylum. Critics argued this effectively denied people their legal right to seek protection, while the government maintained it was a necessary crowd-management tool during periods of high arrivals.
The Legal Challenge
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights organization, along with 13 individual asylum seekers, filed suit in federal court in California, arguing that the metering policy violated federal administrative law.
The central legal question became: When does someone “arrive in” the United States for purposes of asylum law?
What the Law Says About Asylum
Under federal immigration law, a noncitizen “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … whether or not at a designated port of arrival … may apply for asylum”.
Noncitizens who arrive at a port of entry and indicate they want to seek asylum are to be inspected and processed, screened by border officials and then channeled into the asylum system, which may include either an interview with an asylum officer or proceedings in immigration court.
The language seems straightforward: people who arrive at U.S. borders have the right to apply for asylum and must be processed accordingly.
But the dispute centers on interpretation: Does “arrives in the United States” mean only people who have physically crossed into U.S. territory? Or does it include people who present themselves to U.S. officials at a port of entry, even if they’re technically still standing on foreign soil?
The Ninth Circuit’s Decision
By a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the asylum seekers.
Judge Michelle Friedland wrote that “the phrase ‘physically present in the United States’ encompasses noncitizens within our borders, and the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ encompasses those who encounter officials at the border, whichever side of the border they are standing on”.
The court concluded that an asylum seeker who arrives at the border must be inspected and processed.
In other words: When someone presents themselves to a U.S. border official at a port of entry and expresses a desire to seek asylum, they have “arrived” for purposes of asylum law, and the government must process them rather than turn them away.
The Dissent
Not everyone on the Ninth Circuit agreed.
When the full appeals court declined to reconsider the case, Judge Daniel Bress wrote a dissent joined by 11 other judges, arguing that the panel’s holding “violates clear statutory text, precedent, the presumption against” applying U.S. law outside the United States, “and long-held understandings limiting application of the asylum and inspection laws to aliens ‘in’ the United States, which aliens in Mexico are not”.
This split, both within the Ninth Circuit and in how the law should be interpreted, is precisely why the Supreme Court decided to take the case.
The Trump Administration’s Position
The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court in July 2025, asking the justices to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer echoed the dissent, arguing that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling “defies the plain text of the governing statutes. In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders. An alien thus does not ‘arrive in’ the United States while he is still in Mexico”.
The administration’s argument rests on a territorial interpretation: asylum protections only apply to people who have physically entered U.S. soil, not to those standing in Mexico (or Canada, or any other country) waiting at a port of entry.
From this perspective, the government retains full discretion over who may enter at ports of entry and when, with no legal obligation to process asylum claims from people who haven’t yet crossed the border.
The Asylum Seekers’ Response
The challengers argued that because “the government rescinded the metering policy years ago,” the question has “almost no present implications, and likely no future implications”.
But the broader argument from immigrant rights advocates goes deeper: If the Supreme Court sides with the government, it would effectively allow border officials to deny asylum access at ports of entry simply by refusing to allow people to physically step onto U.S. soil.
This, they argue, would make federal asylum law “wholly inoperable” at official crossing points, the very places where people are supposed to be able to legally request protection.
Why This Case Matters Beyond the “Metering” Policy
Even though the specific metering policy at issue has been rescinded, the legal question remains critical for several reasons:
- Future Border Management Policies
The Supreme Court’s interpretation will determine what flexibility future administrations have in managing port-of-entry processing during surges in asylum seekers.
Can the government implement similar “wait in Mexico” or turnback policies? Or must everyone who presents themselves at a port of entry be allowed to formally apply for asylum?
- The Scope of Asylum Protections
This case will clarify where U.S. asylum law applies geographically. Does it extend to the immediate border zone where U.S. officials operate? Or only to U.S. territory proper?
- Executive Authority vs. Statutory Obligations
The case pits executive branch authority to control the border against statutory requirements Congress has written into immigration law. How the Court balances these competing interests will affect immigration enforcement broadly.
- Implications for Other Immigration Policies
The decision could affect interpretation of related provisions in immigration law concerning inspection, processing, and the rights of people seeking entry to the United States.
Timeline and What to Watch
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Noem v. Al Otro Lado during its current term, with a decision expected by June 2026.
Key factors to monitor:
- How the Court interprets the phrase “arrives in the United States”
- Whether the Court gives deference to executive branch border management authority
- How the decision interacts with other asylum-related provisions in immigration law
- Whether the Court addresses the practical implications for humanitarian protection
What This Means for Immigration Practice
For immigration attorneys and advocates, this case represents a critical moment in asylum law. The decision will affect:
- Asylum strategy and advice for clients approaching ports of entry
- Litigation approaches in asylum and border enforcement cases
- Policy advocacy around humanitarian protection at the border
- Understanding of statutory interpretation in immigration law more broadly
As Jennifer Behm notes:
“Cases like this remind us that immigration law is constantly evolving at the highest levels. What seems settled can shift, and practitioners must stay informed about Supreme Court developments that can reshape the landscape overnight.”
The Broader Context: Immigration Law at a Crossroads
This case arrives at a moment of ongoing tension over immigration policy, border security, and humanitarian obligations.
Recent years have seen:
- Fluctuating numbers of asylum seekers at the southern border
- Shifting policies between administrations on asylum processing
- Ongoing debates about the capacity of the immigration system
- Questions about how to balance border management with legal protections
The Supreme Court’s decision in Noem v. Al Otro Lado won’t resolve all these tensions, but it will establish important legal parameters for how future policies must operate within the framework of existing immigration law.
Staying Informed
Berardi Immigration Law will continue monitoring this case closely and will provide updates as oral arguments approach and when the decision is issued.
Have questions about asylum law or how Supreme Court decisions might affect your immigration case? Schedule a consultation with Berardi Immigration Law. Our experienced team stays on top of the latest developments to provide you with informed, strategic guidance in a complex legal environment.
Ready to have Berardi on your side?
Whether you’re a business looking to hire or a professional hoping to relocate, immigration law can be complicated. But you don’t have to do it alone. Put our experience to work for you.