WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could determine the extent of asylum seekers’ rights at the southern border, taking up a dispute over whether migrants prevented from entering through official ports of entry are entitled to seek asylum protections under federal law.
The case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, centers on a challenge to a border-processing policy known as “metering,” under which U.S. officials limited the number of asylum seekers allowed to present claims at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Supreme Court granted review in November 2025 and heard oral arguments in March, with a decision expected by the end of its current term. The case remains pending as of June 12.
At issue is the interpretation of federal immigration law governing who may apply for asylum. The Trump administration has argued that asylum seekers who remain on the Mexican side of the border have not legally “arrived in” the United States and therefore are not entitled to file asylum claims. Attorneys representing migrants and the immigrant-rights organization Al Otro Lado contend that individuals turned back by U.S. officials at ports of entry should still be considered eligible to seek protection under U.S. law.
During oral arguments on March 24, Justice Department attorney Vivek Suri told the court that “you can’t arrive in the United States while you’re still standing in Mexico,” according to court reports. Attorneys for the challengers argued that such an interpretation would undermine Congress’s asylum framework and encourage migrants to cross the border outside official entry points.
The dispute arose from policies implemented during the Obama administration and expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term. Lower courts ruled against the government, finding that asylum seekers who reached ports of entry could not be denied access to the asylum process solely because of capacity limitations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the policy conflicted with federal immigration law.
The Trump administration has argued that border officials require flexibility to manage surges in migration and limited processing resources. Immigration advocates have maintained that the policy exposed asylum seekers to dangerous conditions while waiting in Mexico and unlawfully restricted access to protections established by Congress.
The case is one of several immigration disputes before the Supreme Court during its 2025–26 term. A ruling could affect future border-processing policies and clarify when asylum protections begin under U.S. law.
As of Thursday, the justices had not issued a decision. The existing metering policy is no longer in effect, but administration officials have argued that similar measures may be needed in the future if border conditions change.
