Mar 25, 2026 - The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case challenging the federal government's authority to limit asylum processing at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The dispute, known as Noem v. Al Otro Lado, centers on the practice known as "metering," under which U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have turned back asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the border when officials determine that ports of entry are overburdened. The Trump administration is defending the policy's legality, while an immigrant rights group and affected asylum seekers argue it violates federal immigration law requiring inspection and processing of those who arrive seeking protection.
The case stems from a policy used in varying forms since the Obama administration and expanded during the first Trump term. A lower court ruled the systematic turnbacks unlawful, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. The Biden administration rescinded the metering policy in 2021, but the current administration has indicated it may seek to resume similar measures as a tool for managing border surges and preventing overcrowding.
During arguments, justices questioned both sides on the definition of when an asylum seeker legally "arrives in the United States" under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Government lawyers argued that individuals stopped on Mexican soil have not yet arrived and thus have no automatic right to claim asylum at that moment. Attorneys for the challengers contended that presenting oneself at a port of entry and being blocked by U.S. officials constitutes arrival, entitling them to inspection and processing.
The case has drawn attention from advocacy organizations on both sides of the immigration debate. It does not directly address a separate, broader asylum restriction implemented earlier in the year that also faces legal challenges. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
The arguments occurred as the Department of Homeland Security, under new Secretary Markwayne Mullin, continues to manage high volumes of migration encounters at the southern border. No immediate changes to current border procedures resulted from the hearing.
As of Wednesday, the Supreme Court had not issued any interim orders in the case. Proceedings continued with the justices' standard deliberation process following oral arguments.