On Nov. 17, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, agreeing to review whether a migrant CBP stops on the Mexican side of the Southwest border is "arriving in the United States" under Section 208(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case will determine if DHS can physically turn away asylum seekers before they step foot on American soil at ports of entry.

Section 208(a)(1) of the INA states that any noncitizen "who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival)...may apply for asylum." The legal question is whether someone standing at a port of entry on the Mexican side but attempting to enter counts as "arriving." The 9th Circuit said yes, but Trump's DOJ argues this interpretation strips DHS of border control authority.

During Trump's first administration in 2018, DHS began a policy called "metering"—physically blocking asylum seekers from entering ports of entry and turning them back to Mexico before they could step onto U.S. soil. Border agents would tell people the port was at capacity and they needed to wait in Mexico, sometimes for months. This policy aimed to circumvent the law requiring processing of asylum seekers who arrive at ports.

Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights organization, and several asylum seekers filed a lawsuit in 🌴California challenging the metering policy. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the policy violated federal law because someone physically present at a port of entry attempting to cross is "arriving in the United States" even if they haven't crossed yet. The court said DHS must allow them to enter for processing.

The Trump administration argues the 9th Circuit's ruling "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.'" DOJ claims that if border officials can't turn people away before they enter, it will create operational chaos at ports of entry. They want Supreme Court to say "arriving" only applies once someone physically crosses onto U.S. soil.

Al Otro Lado told the Supreme Court the government's interpretation "would empower border officials to render" asylum law "wholly inoperable at ports of entry." Their brief argues that if DHS can use force to prevent people from physically reaching U.S. soil at designated ports, asylum seekers have no practical way to apply for protection. This would violate the Refugee Act of 1980's requirement to process asylum claims.

The case has major implications for how DHS uses force at the border. If the Court rules migrants aren't "arriving" until they cross onto U.S. soil, border agents could use physical barriers, riot police, or other force to prevent people from reaching ports of entry. This could effectively eliminate asylum at legal ports of entry even though federal law explicitly says people can apply at ports.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in 2026 with a decision expected by June 2026. This will be the first major immigration case of the term. The ruling will determine whether Trump's second-term border strategy—using force to prevent entry at ports—complies with federal asylum law or requires Congressional action to change the statute.