The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Noem v. Al Otro Lado, a pivotal case examining the legality of a policy used by past administrations to regulate the flow of asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border. This case will scrutinize the practice of “metering,” which was employed to control the number of immigrants permitted to apply for asylum at border crossings, pending a capacity to process their claims.
The Trump administration’s appeal follows the Ninth Circuit’s October 2024 decision to invalidate metering. This practice involved US border agents setting quotas on the number of asylum seekers allowed to proceed, a strategy first implemented during President Obama’s tenure, notably at the San Diego-Tijuana border. The approach saw wider application during Trump’s first term due to increasing migration pressures in 2016, but was later abandoned as the COVID-19 pandemic imposed stricter limitations on asylum requests. President Biden formally ended the practice in 2021.
In 2021, US District Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled that metering contravened migrants’ constitutional rights and violated federal law, which mandates that officials assess anyone appearing at the border seeking asylum. The Department of Justice, in its petition, contended that the Ninth Circuit ruling removes a crucial mechanism essential for managing border surges and preventing overcrowding at entry points. The Supreme Court is anticipated to hear the case in late winter or early spring.
The issue of border management and legal rights of asylum seekers continues to underscore the complexity of immigration policy in the United States. Legal professionals and policymakers alike are closely watching the proceedings, as the outcome could have significant implications for how the US navigates the challenges posed by immigration and international human rights obligations.
Further details on the case can be found in the JURIST article and in coverage from Reuters, which provides additional context on the broader immigration initiatives impacted by this legal review.