Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Asylum Metering Policy

The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of *Noem v. Al Otro Lado*, which addresses the Trump administration's "metering" policy that restricts asylum seekers at the U.S.–Mexico border. This policy has been criticized for turning away individuals seeking asylum before they can physically enter the United States. The case centers on the interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically the phrase "arrives in" the United States, which the government argues requires physical presence on U.S. soil.

JURISTSlateThe Globe and Mail (Toronto)

Vivek Suri, representing the government, contended that the INA's language supports the metering policy, asserting that individuals cannot "arrive in the United States" while still in Mexico. Conversely, Kelsi Corkran, representing the challengers, argued that the policy undermines the United States' obligations under international law to protect refugees from persecution.

JURIST

During the proceedings, several justices expressed skepticism regarding the government's interpretation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the refusal to process asylum seekers who are "knocking on the door" violates international obligations. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted concerns that the policy disadvantages those attempting to enter lawfully, while those crossing unlawfully may still have their applications considered.

JURIST

Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about how international law interacts with the metering policy, while Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged the practical concerns of overwhelmed ports of entry. The justices' inquiries revealed a tension between statutory interpretation and the broader implications for asylum seekers.

JURIST

The metering policy has significant implications for asylum seekers, as it effectively blocks access to the asylum process for many individuals fleeing violence and persecution. Critics argue that the policy allows the government to evade its treaty obligations to protect refugees. The Supreme Court's decision, expected by late June or early July, could have lasting effects on U.S. immigration policy and the treatment of asylum seekers.

JURIST

While the government maintains that the metering policy does not violate international law, critics argue that it creates a barrier to asylum for those who need protection. The ongoing debate highlights a broader conflict over the interpretation of immigration laws and the responsibilities of the United States under international treaties.

JURIST

• “defies the statutory text. You can’t arrive in the United States while you’re standing in Mexico.” — Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General

JURIST

• “She suggested that refusing to process asylum seekers who are effectively “knocking on the door” may violate the United States’ international obligations.” — Justice Sonia Sotomayor

JURIST

The outcome of this case will not only shape the future of the metering policy but also influence the broader landscape of U.S. immigration law and the treatment of asylum seekers at the border.

JURIST