The Supreme Court agreed on Nov. 17, 2025 (Monday) to review the case Noem v. Al Otro Lado. The central question is whether a migrant stopped by Customs and Border Protection on the Mexican side of the Southwest border is "arriving in the United States" such that they must be allowed to enter and apply for asylum. The case challenges the "metering" policy used by past administrations to control asylum processing at the border.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the metering policy, ruling that border officials cannot stop migrants on the Mexican side and deny them the right to apply for asylum. The appeals court found the practice violated federal immigration law, which requires the U.S. to process asylum claims for people who arrive at ports of entry. The Trump administration appealed, arguing the ruling strips the Executive Branch of authority to manage border security.

Under the metering policy, CBP officers turned away asylum seekers at official ports of entry, telling them to wait in Mexico until "space opened up" to process their claims. The policy created months-long waiting lists in Mexican border cities, exposing asylum seekers to violence, kidnapping, and extortion. Immigrant rights groups documented cases where people died waiting or gave up on legal entry and crossed illegally.

The Trump administration's petition argues that the 9th Circuit decision "has already caused—and, if left in place, will continue to cause—'untold interference with the Executive Branch's ability to manage the southern border.'" The government claims it needs flexibility to control the flow of asylum seekers based on available resources and processing capacity. The administration contends that allowing unlimited asylum claims would overwhelm the system.

Immigrant rights groups including Al Otro Lado argue that federal law clearly states that any person who arrives at a port of entry can apply for asylum. They contend the metering policy effectively closes the border to asylum seekers without congressional authorization. The groups say the policy forces desperate people to choose between waiting indefinitely in danger or crossing illegally, which then subjects them to criminal prosecution.

The case has major implications for how the U.S. processes asylum claims at the southern border. If the Supreme Court rules for the Trump administration, it would give border officials broad authority to turn away asylum seekers before they technically "arrive" on U.S. soil. If the Court upholds the 9th Circuit, it would require the government to process asylum claims for anyone who reaches a port of entry, regardless of capacity constraints.

Immigration courts and asylum adjudicators worldwide rely on U.S. asylum law as precedent for their own systems. The Supreme Court's interpretation of what constitutes "arriving" will affect not just U.S. border policy but international asylum standards. The decision will likely come in June 2026, near the end of the Court's current term.