On March 24, the American Immigration Council and partners presented arguments at the Supreme Court in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, with the Trump administration asking the Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision declaring the turnback policy unlawful. The case will determine whether CBP can legally prevent asylum seekers from presenting themselves at ports of entry—a question that will reshape asylum practice if decided in the government’s favor.
What changed
Under the government’s “turnback policy” (which the government calls “metering”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials turned asylum seekers back into Mexico, sometimes falsely asserting that there was no capacity to inspect and process them. Originally filed in July 2017, the case has a long history across the last three presidential administrations. The plaintiffs are Al Otro Lado, a binational legal and humanitarian service provider based in California and Mexico, and a group of people seeking asylum who were subjected to the turnback policy.
The Council and its partners filed a brief defending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on the merits, with nine amicus briefs filed in support by a broad coalition of former government officials, members of Congress, scholars, clergy, and human rights advocates. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 24, 2026.
Why it matters
The case directly addresses whether asylum seekers have a fundamental right to present themselves for inspection at U.S. ports of entry. While the turnback policy is not currently in place at the southern border, the future of the practice remains uncertain. If the Supreme Court reverses the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the U.S. government would likely be allowed to use turnbacks against noncitizens again, leading to preventable suffering and dysfunction at the border.
For practitioners, the stakes are high:
- If the Court affirms the Ninth Circuit, asylum applicants retain the right to present at ports and cannot be turned back under metering
- If the Court reverses, the government gains broad authority to block asylum access at ports, requiring practitioners to advise clients on alternative strategies or potential secondary harm
The Supreme Court typically hands down its rulings in June and July, before its summer recess begins. A decision in this case could reshape how asylum law is applied nationwide.
Way forward
- Monitor the Supreme Court’s website for the decision in Noem v. Al Otro Lado (docket No. [case number not specified in source])—expect a ruling by late July 2026
- If you represent clients at the southern border, do not assume the turnback policy is permanently prohibited; plan client strategy accordingly once the decision drops
- Review secondary materials from the American Immigration Council and Center for Constitutional Rights when the opinion is released to understand its full scope and any narrow holdings
- Consult federal court filings in the case for amicus briefs and oral argument transcripts, which will provide insight into the Court’s reasoning
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. It is a summary of publicly available information from the American Immigration Council and the Supreme Court’s docket. Immigration law is complex and subject to change without notice. Always verify information against the primary sources linked above and consult a licensed immigration attorney before making decisions in your case.