Why It Matters
A pivotal asylum case before the U.S. Supreme Court could reshape immigration enforcement along the Arizona border and across the entire southern boundary of the United States. The outcome will determine whether federal border officers have the legal authority to turn away migrants before they set foot on American soil, effectively blocking them from applying for asylum at official ports of entry.
If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, border officials at ports of entry in Arizona and other border states could once again physically refuse to process asylum seekers who approach from the Mexican side of a crossing. Immigration advocates warn the ruling could eliminate a fundamental protection enshrined in federal law.
What Happened
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, a case that traces its origins to a Trump administration policy from his first term. The legal dispute centers on a 2019 memorandum that established what became known as the “metering” or “turn-back” policy, which allowed Customs and Border Protection officers to physically turn away asylum seekers before they could enter the United States at designated ports of entry.
The policy rested on the legal argument that migrants must be physically present inside the United States to apply for asylum, and that standing at a border crossing on the Mexican side did not meet that threshold. Lower courts later found the policy unlawful.
A federal district court ruled that the turn-back policy violated administrative procedure law, concluding that CBP had a statutory duty to inspect and process asylum seekers who arrived at ports of entry. A split panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in 2024. The Trump administration subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit decision, and the court agreed to take the case in November 2024.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in written briefs that the plain meaning of the word “arrives” requires a person to be on U.S. soil before asylum protections apply. “In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders,” Sauer wrote, adding that the 9th Circuit ruling interferes with the president’s authority to manage the southern border and set immigration policy.
By the Numbers
- A 2020 investigation by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General found that up to 680 migrants per day were turned away under the metering policy during Trump’s first term.
- The Supreme Court agreed in November 2024 to hear the case, with oral arguments scheduled for March 2026.
- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its split ruling in 2024, affirming the lower court’s order against the turn-back policy.
- The original metering memorandum was issued in 2019, during Trump’s first term in office.
- The case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, involves the government’s enforcement posture at ports of entry across at least four southwestern border states, including Arizona.
Zoom Out
The case arrives at the Supreme Court as the Trump administration has pursued an aggressive series of border enforcement measures during its second term, including expanded deportation operations and restrictions on humanitarian parole programs. The legal questions at the center of Noem v. Al Otro Lado connect directly to a broader national debate over the scope of executive authority in immigration enforcement.
Federal courts, particularly those within the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction covering Arizona and other western border states, have been a frequent battleground for immigration policy challenges. Several lower court rulings have blocked or delayed Trump-era immigration actions, creating an ongoing tension between the executive branch and the judiciary that the administration has repeatedly sought to resolve through Supreme Court review.
Immigration advocates argue the case represents an attempt by the administration to obtain a ruling with implications far beyond the original turn-back policy, potentially giving border officers broad discretion to refuse asylum processing at any port of entry along the southern border.
What’s Next
Following Tuesday’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling before the end of its current term in late June 2026. A decision in favor of the administration would likely enable CBP to immediately resume turning away migrants at ports of entry, including those in Arizona such as Nogales and Douglas. A ruling against the administration would reaffirm the lower courts’ findings and maintain the legal requirement for CBP to process asylum seekers who present at official crossings. Legal analysts expect the court’s conservative majority to weigh the administration’s executive authority arguments heavily in deliberations.