The Supreme Court agreed this week to take up a major border security case over whether U.S. officials must process asylum seekers who remain on the Mexican side of a port of entry but attempt to request protection from U.S. officers.
At the center of the legal fight is whether a migrant who is physically standing in Mexico but speaking to U.S. officers at a port has “arrived in” the U.S. under federal law. By statute, a noncitizen who is “physically present in” or who “arrives” in the U.S. may apply for asylum.
The lawsuit, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, was originally filed in July 2017 by the immigrant rights group Al Otro Lado and 13 asylum seekers, according to court documents. They argue that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated federal law when officials told migrants who reached a port of entry to wait in Mexico rather than inspecting and processing them. Their challenge targeted “metering,” a policy that limits how many asylum seekers are accepted each day when ports reach capacity.
Metering began in 2016 under the Obama administration amid a surge of Haitian migrants at the San Ysidro crossing in California, according to court documents. The Trump administration expanded the practice across the southern border in 2018.
While DHS rescinded the metering policy in 2021 under former President Joe Biden, the Trump administration has indicated it may reinstate the guidance, Reuters reported.
In October 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 that the phrase “arrives in the U.S.” includes someone who reaches the port and asks for asylum, even if they have not physically crossed into U.S. soil. Writing for the majority, Judge Michelle Friedland said that once a migrant presents themselves to U.S. officials, the government must inspect and process them.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court in July to intervene, arguing the 9th Circuit “defies the plain text” of immigration law and would undermine orderly border operations.
“In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in court documents. “An alien thus does not ‘arrive in’ the United States while he is still in Mexico.”
“Allied forces did not ‘arrive in’ Normandy while they were still crossing the English Channel,” they wrote, referring to the 1944 D-Day landings during World War IITwo. “A letter does not ‘arrive in’ the mailbox while it is still in the postal worker’s satchel.”
“And a running back does not ‘arrive in’ the end zone when he is stopped at the one-yard line,” the lawyers added, referencing a football game.
The administration warned that the lower court ruling would require U.S. officers to treat migrants still standing in Mexico as if they were already inside the country, complicating border-security operations and overwhelming strained ports.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments early next year and issue a ruling by the end of June 2026.