Photo: John Moore / Getty Images News / Getty Images
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a Trump administration policy aimed at limiting asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border. The case, known as Noem v. Al Otro Lado, centers on the practice of "metering," which involves turning away or delaying asylum seekers when border facilities are deemed full. The legal question focuses on what constitutes "arrival" in the United States under federal immigration law. The Trump administration argues that an immigrant "arrives" when meeting immigration officers on the U.S. side of the border. However, a federal appeals court ruled that "arrival" occurs even if this meeting takes place on Mexican soil.
The practice of metering, used by both Democratic and Republican administrations, was formalized during President Trump's first term but later rescinded by the Biden administration. The Justice Department contends that metering is essential during surges of migrants at the border, while opponents argue it incentivizes crossing between ports of entry. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the term "arrives in" encompasses those who encounter officials at the border, regardless of which side they are on.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next year, with a decision expected by early summer. This ruling could significantly impact how asylum claims are processed at the border in the future.