The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could reshape how the federal government processes asylum claims at the southern border, and whether standing on Mexican soil while talking to a U.S. officer counts as "arriving" in the United States.
The case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, pits the Trump administration against an immigration advocacy group in a dispute over the plain meaning of a phrase in the 1990 Immigration and Nationality Act. That law allows an individual who "arrives in the United States" to apply for asylum and be inspected by an immigration officer. The question before the justices: does a migrant stopped by border patrol on the Mexico side of the line qualify?
The answer will determine whether the government can continue managing border surges by controlling physical access to ports of entry, or whether it must treat every encounter with a would-be asylum seeker, even one still in Mexico, as the start of a formal asylum process.
At the center of the case is a practice known as "metering." The Washington Examiner reported that the policy began in 2018 during Trump's first term and was designed to prevent asylum seekers from reaching U.S. soil to make claims at ports of entry. When a port was deemed full, officers turned away or delayed those seeking to cross.
The advocacy group Al Otro Lado challenged the practice. In a brief to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the group argued that border patrol officers standing on the U.S. side of the border "identified asylum seekers, and prevented them from stepping onto U.S. soil." In their telling, the Department of Homeland Security instituted a deliberate policy to stop migrants from even attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Trump administration sees it differently. Government lawyers wrote in their own brief that "an ordinary English speaker would not use the phrase 'arrives in the United States' to describe someone who is stopped in Mexico."
That's not a legal abstraction. It's the core of the fight.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the advocacy group. Fox News reported that the lower court ruled a person "arrives" when presenting to an immigration official at the border, even if the encounter happens on Mexican soil. The court found the metering practice, turning away or delaying asylum seekers because a port was deemed full, was unlawful.
The Justice Department pushed back hard. In its petition to the Supreme Court, the DOJ argued that the 9th Circuit's ruling "deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border." If the ruling stands, border officials lose the ability to manage the physical flow of people at crossing points, a function the government considers essential to maintaining order.
Eric Wessan, solicitor general in the Iowa Office of the Attorney General, put the government's position bluntly:
"An alien stopped at the border in Mexico is definitionally not in the United States and therefore is not afforded what one would get were that alien in the United States."
Wessan also acknowledged a tension in the law. He noted that "federal immigration law requires inspection of all aliens who are applicants for admission," and that once someone presents at a port seeking entry, "he becomes an applicant and the government cannot simply refuse to acknowledge the presence to avoid the statutory processing requirement." But he drew a sharp line between acknowledging a person and granting them the full suite of protections that come with being physically on American soil.
The justices will likely decide the case by the end of June, as The Center Square reported. But the implications stretch well beyond this single dispute. The article noted that the outcome could serve as a precursor to how the high court approaches birthright citizenship, another area where the physical meaning of being "in" the United States carries enormous legal weight.
Wessan gestured at that broader fight directly. "It seems unlikely that the 14th Amendment was intended to serve as a magnet for birth tourism or to reward illegal reentry," he said. That's a line aimed squarely at the constitutional questions the Court may face in future terms.
The Supreme Court has been unusually active on high-stakes disputes in recent months, as seen in its unanimous decision clearing the way for a street preacher's First Amendment lawsuit. The justices have also waded into major election-law questions about ballot counting timelines, and internal tensions over the Court's emergency docket have spilled into public view. Noem v. Al Otro Lado lands on a bench that has shown little appetite for ducking politically charged cases.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 grants asylum protections to individuals who arrive in the country and present themselves for inspection. The statute does not define "arrives in the United States" with geographic precision, which is exactly why this case exists. Both sides claim the plain text supports their reading.
For the government, the answer is physical. You arrive when you set foot on American soil. For Al Otro Lado, the answer is functional. You arrive when you present yourself to an American official at a recognized crossing point, regardless of which side of the painted line you're standing on.
The 9th Circuit chose the functional reading. The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to reverse it.
If the Court sides with the government, it restores a tool that lets border officials manage capacity at ports of entry without triggering full asylum processing for every person who approaches. If it sides with Al Otro Lado, the executive branch loses a key mechanism for controlling the flow, and every encounter at the border, even one on foreign soil, could trigger statutory obligations that stretch federal resources further.
Strip away the legal briefs and this case asks a question most Americans would answer without hesitation: are you in the United States when you are standing in Mexico?
The 9th Circuit said yes, at least for asylum purposes. The Trump administration says that defies common sense and guts the government's ability to manage its own borders. Wessan, the Iowa solicitor general, framed the executive branch's authority as constitutionally rooted, arguing it holds the power to manage disputes on the borders. That framing matters. If the Court agrees, it strengthens the hand of any administration, present or future, trying to impose order at overwhelmed crossing points.
The Court's willingness to intervene in unusual institutional disputes suggests the justices are not inclined to leave hard questions to lower courts when the stakes are national. And few stakes are higher than who gets to decide the terms on which people enter this country.
Tuesday's arguments will set the stage. By summer, the Court will tell the country whether "arrives in the United States" means what most people think it means, or whether the 9th Circuit's creative geography becomes the law of the land.
If standing in Mexico counts as arriving in America, words have lost their meaning. And a nation that can't define its own borders can't enforce them.
