The Supreme Court appeared likely to uphold a federal policy of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they reach the U.S. border with Mexico, with a majority of justices seeming to agree the policy does not violate federal law allowing noncitizens to apply for asylum when they “arrive[] in the United States.”
What changed
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group, and 13 asylum seekers challenged a turnback policy before federal courts in southern California. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that noncitizens turned away from ports of entry before they could cross the border had “arrived in” the United States for asylum purposes. After the court of appeals rejected the government’s request to reconsider, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Court heard oral argument on March 24, 2026. Representing the Trump administration, Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Vivek Suri argued that the challengers’ reading of the law would make “arrives in the United States” mean “stopped outside the United States,” which he said “defies the statutory text.”
Why it matters
The case turns on a single statutory phrase that gatekeeps asylum processing at the southern border. The Court must decide whether a noncitizen stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrived in the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, rendering them eligible to apply for asylum and be inspected by an immigration officer.
If the Supreme Court sides with the administration, practitioners representing asylum seekers will lose a core statutory argument—that physical proximity to a port of entry triggers mandatory inspection and asylum processing under INA §§ 1158 and 1225. The policy being challenged is the government’s “metering” program at ports of entry along the southern border, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed was unlawful in 2024. A Supreme Court reversal would overturn that precedent nationwide.
Under the policy, Customs and Border Protection determined that once noncitizens set foot on U.S. soil, they could not be sent back to Mexico without inspection. To circumvent this, CBP instructed border officials to stop people just before the boundary line. Asylum seekers turned away would have to return later, often remaining stranded in Mexico for weeks or months.
Way forward
-
Review pending cases: If you represent asylum-seekers denied processing at ports of entry, monitor the Supreme Court’s decision timeline and assess whether the ruling affects pending reopening or appeal motions.
-
Prepare alternative theories: Begin developing non-INA statutory and constitutional arguments (Fifth Amendment Due Process, Administrative Procedure Act § 706(1), Alien Tort Statute) if the administration prevails on the core statute interpretation.
-
Document client situations: For clients currently in Mexico awaiting processing, contemporaneously document the conditions and circumstances of any turnback to preserve evidence for potential future relief or legislative remedies.
-
Monitor administrative changes: A favorable Supreme Court ruling will likely prompt DHS/CBP to adopt or revise border policies. Track any new guidance or operational changes on ports of entry processing.
Disclaimer
We are a software company, not a law firm. This article is not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney licensed in your jurisdiction to discuss how this case and its potential outcome affect your specific client or situation. The Supreme Court has not yet issued a final decision; oral argument signals are not binding outcomes. Policy can change without notice, and you should verify all information against the primary source linked above and any subsequent Supreme Court filings or orders.