The Supreme Court has ruled that migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border are not entitled to apply for asylum until they have physically entered the country. This 6-3 decision allows for the revival of a policy first implemented by the Trump administration in 2016, which was rescinded in 2021 under the Biden administration.
Under federal law, an asylum claim can be made by a non-citizen who is "physically present in the United States" or "arrives in the United States." The Trump administration had argued that this excluded individuals stopped on the Mexican side of the border. The policy, known as "metering," allows U.S. immigration authorities to limit the number of asylum seekers permitted to request protection daily, citing overburdened processing capabilities.
The court's ruling in Noem v Al Otro Lado overturns a lower court decision that had found the asylum turn-back policy unlawful. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, stated that "In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person 'arrives in' a place . . . before the person enters that place."
In a separate but related decision, the Supreme Court also ruled that the Trump administration can revoke temporary protected status for over 356,000 immigrants from Syria and Haiti. These protections had allowed these individuals to remain in the U.S.
Arguments before the Supreme Court in March focused on the definition of "arrival." Lawyers for the migrants contended that asylum seekers arrive in the U.S. when they reach a port of entry. Conversely, the administration's legal representatives argued that arrival in the U.S. cannot occur while still in Mexico.
Former President Donald Trump has also announced a broader ban on asylum at the border, separate from the metering policy, which is currently facing its own legal challenges.