The complexities of the United States asylum system often lie in interpretation and implementation of laws—which is precisely the issue in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, a case now under the Supreme Court’s spotlight. Historically, applying for asylum required a straightforward step: reaching U.S. soil and expressing the intent to seek asylum to an immigration official. This simple process was significantly altered by policies initiated in the final year of President Obama’s administration. Those policies included “metering,” which restricted entry to a limited number of asylum seekers crossing the U.S. border.
At the heart of the legal debate is the interpretation of being “physically present” or “arriving in” the United States, as characterized by the federal law governing asylum requests. The Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) ability to station officers directly at the border, a practice that began between 2016 and 2021, brought additional scrutiny. An immigrant rights group, Al Otro Lado, successfully argued that such measures violate existing asylum laws, a stance affirmed by decisions from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A key component of the federal government’s defense was the metering and Asylum Transit Rule, which attempted to manage asylum claims by pushing potential applicants to seek refuge in third countries before approaching U.S. borders. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to review the legality of these policies raises crucial legal and ethical questions, notably given the absence of conflicting decisions from other federal circuits.
The Department of Justice’s argument to the Supreme Court suggests that keeping migrants outside of the U.S. border relinquishes the obligation of U.S. officers to process asylum claims. This policy position, if supported by the Court, might create an unintended incentive structure for migrants. As detailed by sociologist Bertha Alicia Bermúdez Tapia, past implementation of these policies saw an increase in unauthorized crossings, asylum seekers resorting to cartels for access, or tragically, even dying in attempts to enter the U.S. via perilous routes.
Proponents of reversing the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion argue the need for stringent border controls, but this case illustrates the fine line between law enforcement and humanitarian obligations. The Supreme Court’s decision will significantly influence future immigration policies and the fates of countless asylum seekers. For ongoing updates and in-depth analysis, the Immigration Matters series on SCOTUSblog offers critical insights into these evolving legal dynamics.