Supreme Court Hears Noem v. Al Otro Lado on When Asylum Seekers ‘Arrive’ in U.S. Under Metering Policy

📌 Key Facts

Oral arguments were held at the Supreme Court on March 24, 2026, focusing on how to interpret the statutory phrase 'arrives in the United States' in asylum law.
The government's brief, signed by Solicitor General John D. Sauer, argued that in 'ordinary English' a person only 'arrives in' a country when they physically come within its borders, so someone stopped in Mexico has not 'arrived in the United States.'
Vivek Suri, an assistant to the solicitor general, told the Court that DHS views 'metering' as a 'tool' it wants 'in its toolbox' for future border surges, though he would not say when it would be used.
Kelsi Corkran, arguing for the plaintiffs (Al Otro Lado), likened the U.S. to a house and said a person 'arrives' at a port of entry when they are at the threshold, about to step over.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed plaintiffs' counsel on how, under their theory, to determine when someone is 'close enough' to be considered to have 'arrived' if they have not physically crossed the border.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why the Court should rule on a policy that has been rescinded, describing the case as involving hypotheticals about a non‑operational practice.

Senator @SenTedCruz expresses pride in leading an amicus brief for Noem v. Al Otro Lado, arguing that radical Ninth Circuit judges have twisted immigration law to create an entitlement for illegal aliens to claim asylum, urging the Supreme Court to reverse this.
@America1stLegal, in their amicus brief, calls on the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision in the case, claiming it misconstrues federal law and usurps executive authority on border management.
Immigration policy expert @ReichlinMelnick highlights the stakes in a related ruling, quoting Judge Reyes who warns that Secretary Noem's approach could unlawfully turn over 350,000 legal immigrants into unlawful ones overnight.
@withouthousing emphasizes the importance of the upcoming oral arguments in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, noting that faith communities across the country have filed an amicus brief to defend the fundamental right to asylum.
Legal scholar @rgoodlaw critiques Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in a related case, pointing out that sworn affidavits reveal ICE practices contradict his assumption that U.S. citizens or lawful residents are simply freed after brief encounters.

Based on 1 sources

Follow how coverage of this story developed over time

March 24, 2026

7:56 PM

MS NOW by Fallon Gallagher

New information:

Oral arguments were held on March 24, 2026, focusing heavily on how to interpret the statutory phrase 'arrives in the United States' in asylum law.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed plaintiffs’ counsel on how, under their theory, to determine when someone is 'close enough' to be considered to have 'arrived' if they have not physically crossed the border.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why the Court should rule on a policy that is currently rescinded, describing the case as involving hypotheticals about a non‑operational practice.
Kelsi Corkran, arguing for Al Otro Lado, likened the U.S. to a house and said a person 'arrives' at a port of entry when they are at the threshold, about to step over.
The government’s brief, signed by Solicitor General John D. Sauer, argues that in 'ordinary English' a person only 'arrives in' a country when they physically come within its borders, and that someone stopped in Mexico has not 'arrived in the United States.'
During arguments, Vivek Suri, assistant to the solicitor general, explicitly stated that DHS views metering as a 'tool' it wants 'in its toolbox' for future border surges, though he could not say when it would be used.

1:40 PM

Fox News