The Supreme Court’s deliberations on the policy concerning asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border could equivalently reinforce the Trump administration’s stance. In recent oral arguments for Noem v. Al Otro Lado, the justices reviewed a challenge to a policy that systematically turned away asylum seekers at the border. This protocol was initiated nearly a decade ago in response to increased asylum claims by Haitian immigrants and was later broadened across U.S. entry points in 2017.
The policy, termed “metering,” has been contested by immigrant rights groups, landing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where the court sided with the challengers, ruling that the action contravened legal provisions allowing asylum applications upon arrival in the U.S.
During the hearing, Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Vivek Suri emphasized that the phrase “arrives in the United States” implies physical presence within the country, arguing against the challengers’ interpretation that would extend the phrase’s meaning to individuals stopped outside the U.S. Following the Supreme Court’s Sale v. Haitian Centers Council decision, Suri asserted that international protections don’t apply to those not within U.S. territory.
However, as highlighted by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, such interpretations could breach U.S. obligations under international treaties. Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns over the practicality of interpreting laws that might reward unauthorized entrants over those trying to follow legal channels but being turned away.
Contrarily, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out that such potential inequities may not be central to the court’s determination, focusing purely on interpreting statutory language. Constitutional queries further loomed when Jackson questioned the pertinence of the case, given the policy’s rescindment over four years ago.
While a decision is anticipated by mid-2026, the proceedings illuminate the complex intersection of statutory interpretation, international obligations, and the practicalities of border control. For a comprehensive account, refer to the SCOTUSblog coverage.