Case centers on whether immigrants ‘arrive’ when meeting officials on Mexican soil or US side
The Supreme Court agreed to review an effort by the Trump administration to limit asylum processing claims from immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border in an order issued Thursday.
The key issue in the case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, is over what constitutes “arrival in the United States” within the meaning of federal immigration law. The law provides that an alien who “arrives” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.
The legal question, however, is over whether an immigrant “arrives” to begin the process for the asylum claim when meeting immigration officers on the U.S. side of the border or while still on the Mexican side.
The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court said someone “arrives” when they present themselves to an immigration official “at the border,” even if that meeting occurs on Mexican soil.
The lower court had ruled that “metering,” or turning away or delaying asylum-seekers because the port was deemed full, was unlawful.
The U.S. provided protection to 54,350 asylum seekers during 2023, according to data compiled by the Office of Homeland Security Statistics, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
That figure included 22,300 individuals who were granted asylum by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within DHS and 32,050 individuals who were granted asylum defensively by the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next year with a ruling expected by early summer.
This is a developing story; check back for updates.
