The Supreme Court of the United States is considering the legality of a border policy that immigration officials say has been critical in managing migrant surges at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The case, Noem v. Alt Otro Lado, focuses on the “metering” policy — a practice that allowed border officials to temporarily limit the number of migrants processed at ports of entry when resources were overwhelmed. The policy, first introduced in 2016 and formalized in 2018, required individuals without valid travel documents to return later when capacity was available.

Legal Dispute

The Trump administration appealed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that metering violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. The lower court concluded that migrants who present themselves at the border — even if still technically outside U.S. territory — should be allowed to apply for asylum.

Government attorney Vivek Suri argued that interpretation misreads the statute, stating that a person cannot “arrive in the United States” while still in Mexico. He said the law’s wording should be taken literally.

Justices Raise Concerns

Several justices questioned both sides:

• Sonia Sotomayor challenged whether the policy conflicts with U.S. refugee obligations
• Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that migrants might be forced to cross illegally just to request asylum
• Amy Coney Barrett asked how close someone must be to the border to count as having “arrived”
• Samuel Alito emphasized the difference between “arriving at” and “arriving in” under the statute
• Brett Kavanaugh suggested the real issue is whether the government can physically stop migrants before they reach the line
• John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch also expressed skepticism toward the challengers’ arguments

What’s at Stake

The decision could significantly affect how the federal government manages large migrant flows. Supporters say metering prevents overcrowding and allows orderly processing. Critics argue it blocks lawful asylum seekers from exercising rights guaranteed under U.S. law.

Although the policy is currently inactive, the court’s ruling could determine whether similar measures can be used in future border surges.