The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the government may legally turn back asylum-seekers who are attempting to reach a port of entry before they hit U.S. soil. The decision, issued today in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, reverses years of lower court rulings that had found turnback practices unlawful and fundamentally reshapes who can invoke statutory asylum rights at the border.
What changed
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority that “an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country.” This interpretation narrows the statutory phrase “arrives in” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which normally grants asylum eligibility to anyone who “arrives in” the U.S.
The “metering” policy began under former President Obama and enables border officials to turn back migrants before they can physically cross the border from Mexico into the U.S., preventing them from making an asylum claim. The ruling greenlights this now-rescinded immigration policy that the Trump administration wants the right to potentially revive.
The suit was originally brought in 2017 by immigrant rights group Al Otro Lado and 13 asylum-seekers after the Obama administration began metering in response to overcrowding at ports of entry, particularly in the San Diego area. Lower courts in 2022 and 2024 had ruled the practice unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Why it matters
This decision strips statutory asylum protections from noncitizens who are physically present at—but have not yet legally “entered”—a U.S. port of entry. If you advise clients who are asylum seekers approaching the southern border, you must now assume they have no statutory right to be inspected and processed for asylum if a CBP officer turns them back while they remain on the Mexican side of the border line.
The practical effect is stark. A person standing inches from U.S. soil at a port of entry cannot invoke the federal statute that normally guarantees asylum processing. The Court’s reasoning—that “arrival” requires actually entering the country—gives border officials discretionary authority to deny access to the asylum process entirely, even at official ports of entry.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued in dissent that the Court never should have taken the case, as metering is no longer being employed and the Trump administration has “no concrete plans to reinstate” the policy, chiding the majority for a “rush to greenlight this retired practice.” However, the ruling now permits the administration to revive the policy if it chooses.
The decision affects class members and all future asylum seekers. Although metering ended in 2021, the Supreme Court’s legal blessing may signal the administration’s green light to adopt similar port-of-entry screening limitations in the future.
Way forward
-
Reassess client advisories at the border. If you represent asylum seekers or migrant organizations, update your guidance: approaching noncitizens can no longer rely on statutory arrival-based asylum protections if they have not yet physically entered U.S. territory. Consult with border legal observers about CBP implementation.
-
Explore alternative theories. This ruling addresses only the INA “arrives” language. Practitioners may continue to raise APA challenges, Fifth Amendment due process claims, or international law arguments (e.g., non-refoulement under the Convention Against Torture) if the metering policy is reinstated—though today’s ruling suggests this Court’s conservative majority will be skeptical.
-
Monitor for policy announcements. Although the Trump administration indicated no immediate reinstatement plans, this decision removes the legal obstacle. Watch for executive orders or CBP memoranda that revive metering at specific ports of entry.
-
Document humanitarian impact. If your practice includes class actions, asylum advocacy, or litigation, preserve records of any harm to clients turned back at the border, as future litigation may require evidence of the policy’s effects.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola Editorial is a software company, not a law firm. Consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific situation, rights, and options. Immigration policy can change without notice; verify the primary source and any applicable current guidance from USCIS, CBP, or the courts before relying on this article in legal proceedings.