Supreme Court to Review “Metering” at the Border — A Case That Could Redefine Asylum Access
On Monday, November 17, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Noem v. Al Otro Lado (No. 25‑5), a closely watched dispute over whether U.S. officials can lawfully “meter” — i.e., turn back or pause — asylum seekers at ports of entry by claiming capacity limits. The justices’ answer to a deceptively simple statutory question about who has “arrive[d] in the United States” could reset frontline practices at the southern border and shape asylum access nationwide by mid‑2026. [1]
- What’s new: The Court granted review in a case challenging “metering,” a policy first used in 2016 and formalized in 2018, but rescinded in 2021. The government argues it may need it again. [2]
- The legal hinge: Whether asylum seekers physically stopped on the Mexican side have legally “arrived in the United States” and must be inspected and processed. [3]
- Why it matters: A ruling could bless or bar a key operational tool at ports of entry and influence parallel litigation over broader asylum restrictions. [4]
What the Court Agreed to Decide
The petition asks whether non‑citizens who are prevented from stepping onto U.S. soil at an official crossing nonetheless “arrive in the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. If they have “arrived,” immigration officers must inspect them and allow applications for asylum; if not, the government claims discretion to delay or limit processing at the gate. The Ninth Circuit previously held that arrivals include those presenting at ports even if officers hold them at the international line. [5]
Metering 101: The Policy and Its Origins
“Metering” emerged amid migration surges in 2016, was formalized by DHS in 2018 to cap daily processing at ports, and was rescinded in 2021. The DOJ now argues lower‑court limits removed a critical tool and that the policy could be revived “as soon as changed border conditions warranted.” [7]
The Road to SCOTUS
The Ninth Circuit’s 2024 Ruling
In October 2024, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed a district‑court decision holding metering unlawful, concluding that CBP must inspect individuals who present themselves to seek asylum at ports of entry. The case continued under classwide injunction and was amended and partially vacated on remand for administrative reasons in 2025, but the core legal holding remained, setting up the government’s July 1, 2025 certiorari petition. [8]
Procedural Posture and Timeline
Docket
Noem v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25‑5 (U.S.). [9]
Key Filings
Government’s cert petition filed July 1, 2025; respondents’ brief in opposition filed October 8, 2025. [10]
Grant Date
Cert granted Monday, November 17, 2025; argument expected spring 2026; decision by June 2026. [11]
Parties
Petitioners: DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, et al. Respondents: Al Otro Lado and certified classes. [12]
The Government’s Case vs. Respondents’ Case
| Government (Petitioners) | Respondents (Al Otro Lado) |
|---|---|
| “Arrive in” means entry into U.S. territory; individuals held on the Mexican side have not “arrive[d]” and may be queued or turned back when capacity is exceeded. [13] | Presenting at a U.S. port constitutes “arrival” triggering statutory inspection and asylum processing; metering unlawfully evaded these obligations. [14] |
| Case not moot; policy may be needed again amid surges and thus merits guidance from the Court. [15] | Metering stranded families in dangerous conditions in Mexico and violated the INA and APA by withholding mandatory inspections. [16] |
| Operational flexibility at ports is essential; Congress did not intend to eliminate triage in genuine capacity constraints. [17] | Statutory text and structure prioritize access to the asylum process; safety and due process cannot hinge on line‑placement at the border. [18] |
How This Fits Into the Broader Border Policy Landscape
The metering dispute is distinct from the administration’s separate, broader asylum restrictions issued earlier this year, which are also being litigated. A ruling here addresses the threshold of access at ports — not the merits or eligibility criteria once a person is processed. Still, the Court’s posture in related immigration cases this term has often favored executive authority, a backdrop both sides are factoring in. [19]
Key Quotes
Attorneys for respondents said the government’s “turnback policy was an illegal scheme” that blocked people “arriving at ports of entry” from seeking protection. [20]
DOJ has argued the controversy is not moot and that metering could resume “as soon as changed border conditions warranted that step.” [21]
What to Watch Next
Legal Stakes ⚖️
A textual ruling on “arrive in” could either lock in mandatory inspection at ports or validate triage that holds people outside U.S. territory. Expect close parsing of statutory language and practical effects. [22]
Operational Stakes 🚧
CBP’s port‑management playbook — including how it uses appointment or queuing systems alongside capacity claims — could be reshaped ahead of peak spring migration. [23]
Policy and Politics 🗳️
Both parties are likely to message the case in the context of border control vs. legal obligations. The ruling will land months before the 2026 midterm cycle accelerates. [24]
Methodology and Source Notes
- Grant coverage and case framing: Reuters, AP, Politico (all published November 17, 2025). [25]
- Docket and proceedings: Supreme Court docket for No. 25‑5 and SCOTUSblog case page. [26]
- Ninth Circuit background and respondents’ position: CCR and CGRS materials; filings linked by CGRS. [27]
Bottom Line
The Court’s decision to take Noem v. Al Otro Lado elevates a nuts‑and‑bolts question of border management into a nationwide precedent on asylum access. Whether “arrive in” means stepping past a painted line or presenting oneself at a port will determine if the government can throttle entries at the gate — or must process first and sort later. Oral arguments next spring will test the justices’ appetite for executive flexibility versus statutory guarantees embedded in the asylum system. [28]
References: Reuters (Nov. 17, 2025); AP (Nov. 17, 2025); Politico (Nov. 17, 2025); Supreme Court docket No. 25‑5; SCOTUSblog case page; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies filings; Center for Constitutional Rights note on the Ninth Circuit decision. [29]
Comments
0 commentsJoin the discussion below.