The U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh important issues next week, centered on a challenge to the now-rescinded government policy of denying asylum seekers entry at the U.S.-Mexico border. The case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, addresses the legality of actions taken predominantly under the Trump administration where asylum seekers were turned away before they could formally apply for asylum upon reaching U.S. soil.
Under the federal immigration law, individuals claimed to seek asylum when they are either physically present in the United States or at a U.S. port of entry. During a 2017 expansion of the “metering” policy, noncitizens, including those seeking asylum, were systematically turned away at borders, pending valid travel documents, without being allowed to submit their claims. While the policy was officially annulled over four years ago, the Trump administration argues in its current legal brief that such actions were an essential measure to manage border surges.
- The 9th Circuit Court’s divided ruling found that turning individuals away from ports of entry, even just at the border line, fulfills the criteria of having “arrived in” the U.S., granting those individuals the right to apply for asylum. This decision was nonetheless opposed by a dissent from Judge Daniel Bress, who called it a breach of clear statutory text and U.S. law precedence which traditionally does not include individuals on the Mexican side of the border.
The Biden administration’s brief opposes the 9th Circuit’s interpretation, emphasizing that “arriving in the United States” legally signifies crossing into U.S. territory. The government relies on Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. to support its position, arguing that immigration protections don’t apply outside of U.S. soil.
The challengers, supported by their brief, contend that Congress intended to hold federal officers accountable for inspecting migrants even as they attempt to cross into the U.S. They assert that the 9th Circuit ruling respects international norms, including non-refoulement, which obligates nations not to expel refugees into territories where they may face danger.
The case underscores the ongoing debate over U.S. asylum procedures and the extent of protections available at international borders. The Supreme Court’s ruling will potentially shape the legal landscape for asylum seekers and federal enforcement strategies, and could reignite discussions on immigration policy in Congress.
For further details, see the original report on SCOTUSblog.