1 Trending: Media Falsely Paint Woman Charged With Murdering Her Baby As A Victim Of Pro-Life Laws

2 Trending: Democrats’ Fraud-Friendly Election Rules Destroy Public Trust

3 Trending: Polymarket’s D.C. Pop-Up Bar Brought Young People Together To Collectively Ignore Each Other

4 Trending: 5 Ways Working Moms Can Save Their Best Energy For Their Kids

Supreme Court Weighs Asylum Policy Critical To Combatting Border Surges

‘If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing … that we’re looking for where we say, “Ah, now that person we can say ‘arrives in’ the United States?”‘ asked Justice Barrett.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the legality of a border policy that’s played a key role in immigration officials’ efforts to stave off migrant surges at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Noem v. Alt Otro Lado, which deals with a challenge to border officials’ now-inactive “metering” policy. As described by the Trump administration, the practice — which was initially implemented in 2016 and later formalized in 2018 — involves “port officials … stand[ing] along the border and temporarily prevent[ing] aliens without valid travel documents from crossing into the United States, generally telling them that they would need to return to the port of entry later, when there were sufficient resources to process them.”

The Trump administration appealed the case to SCOTUS after the 9th Circuit Court held that the policy violates provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that allow for an individual who “arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum and undergo inspection by an immigration official. The lower court argued that “the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ encompasses those who encounter officials at the border, whichever side of the border they are standing on.”

Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Vivek Suri rejected that conclusion during Tuesday’s arguments. He contended that such a theory “is wrong for the simple reason that it defies the statutory text.”

“You can’t ‘arrive in the United States’ while still in Mexico. That should be the end of this case,” Suri said, while also citing SCOTUS precedent he argued supports the government’s position.

The administration’s attorney faced aggressive pushback from the court’s Democrat appointees — more specifically, Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Sotomayor took issue with Suri’s response to a question from Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, in which he argued that metering does not “implicate” America’s treaty obligations as it relates to refugees and asylum issues. The Obama appointee’s repeated unwillingness to allow Suri to answer her long-winded questions prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to interject and ask that he finish his response.

In her questioning, Jackson expressed concern about the “practical implications” of the administration’s position “insofar as it suggests that a Congress that was authorizing asylum would be requiring people to break the law in order to obtain it” (i.e. that someone would have to enter the U.S. illegally before they could apply for asylum under the statute). She also seemingly suggested that the case should be deemed moot since metering isn’t currently being used.

Suri later got the chance to fully address Jackson’s first point when pressed on the issue by Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The assistant to the solicitor general noted how metering only temporarily turns away an asylum seeker when a port of entry is overcrowded on a given day, and that “Congress could reasonably determine that the United States has greater responsibilities to aliens in the United States than to aliens in Mexico.”

(Kavanaugh would later pose a counter to Jackson’s framing in a question to the opposing side.)

Meanwhile, the court’s Republican appointees had their fair share of challenging questions for Alt Otro Lado’s attorney, Kelsi Corkran.

Citing a prior point made by Roberts about the fact that the statute uses the language “arrives in” instead of “arriving,” Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted how “‘arriving’ sounds more ‘in the process of,'” and “‘arrives in’ sounds more like you’ve reached your destination.” She then pressed Corkran on how, under her theory, one is supposed to know “when the person is close enough that we could say … they have ‘arrives in’ or ‘arrived in’ the destination?”

“What if there’s a queue and they’re far back, or what if they arrive not at a port of entry? How close do you have to be to the border?” Barrett asked. “If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing or the dispositive thing that we’re looking for where we say, ‘Ah, now that person we can say ‘arrives in’ the United States’?”

Conflicting rhetoric about the statute’s specific text is also an issue Associate Justice Samuel picked up on. In his questioning, the Bush 43 appointee chastised Corkran, Sotomayor, and Jackson for misrepresenting what the law actually says.

“It will be interesting to read the actual transcript of the oral argument because I believe that both you, and Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, on several occasions, have used the phrase ‘arriving at.’ … But that’s not the term that is in the statute. Do you think that there is no difference between ‘arriving at’ a location and ‘arriving in’ the location?” Alito asked Corkran.

Justice Alito rips a left-wing attorney and Justices Sotomayor and Jackson for misrepresenting what the asylum statute at issue actually says. @FDRLST pic.twitter.com/3UoT05a9US— Shawn Fleetwood (@ShawnFleetwood) March 24, 2026

Justice Alito rips a left-wing attorney and Justices Sotomayor and Jackson for misrepresenting what the asylum statute at issue actually says. @FDRLST pic.twitter.com/3UoT05a9US

Kavanaugh suggested that the debate about “trying to figure out at the threshold on the [border] line” is “artificial” “because wherever the line is, the government’s presumably going to stop you on the other side of that line and prevent you from getting to wherever the line is.” He added that it seems the “bigger question” at issue is whether the government can “physically stop people before they get to whatever that line is no matter how we define it.”

Roberts and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch also appeared skeptical of Corkran’s arguments.

A decision in Noem v. Alt Otro Lado is not expected until later in the court’s 2025-2026 term, which is slated to end in late June.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Supreme Court Voices Skepticism About States Accepting Mail-In Ballots After Election Day

Supreme Court Gears Up To Decide If Elections End On Election Day

SCOTUS To Hear Arguments On Trump’s Bid To End Temporary Status For Foreign Nationals

Here’s How Leftists Weaponize Their Anti-Trump Judicial Coup To Attack SCOTUS

Planned Parenthood Illinois To Pay $500K After Investigation For ‘Segregating Employees By Race’

Democrats Continue Holding American Air Travelers Hostage To Save Illegal Aliens

Arriving ‘Legally’ Doesn’t Magically Make Immigrants Good Americans

The Newest Georgia ‘Republican’ Is A Scandal-Plagued Democrat Carpetbagger

Visit The Federalist on Facebook

Visit The Federalist on Twitter

Visit The Federalist on Instagram

Watch The Federalist on YouTube

View The Federalist RSS Feed

Listen to The Federalist Podcast

© 2026 The Federalist, A wholly independent division of FDRLST Media. All rights reserved.

Visit The Federalist on Facebook

Visit The Federalist on Twitter

Visit The Federalist on Instagram

Watch The Federalist on YouTube

View The Federalist RSS Feed

Listen to The Federalist Podcast

© The Federalist