Introduction

At MyAttorneyUSA.com, we are dedicated to providing clear, actionable insights into U.S. immigration law and policy changes that impact individuals seeking protection and opportunities in the United States. As experienced immigration attorneys, we closely monitor developments in asylum procedures, border enforcement, and related litigation. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Noem v. Al Otro Lado (Docket No. 25-5), agreeing to review a controversial Obama-era practice known as “metering.” This policy, which involves turning away asylum seekers at U.S. ports of entry along the southern border, was deemed illegal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court’s decision to hear the case, announced on November 17, 2025, could have significant implications for asylum access and border management under the current administration. 

In this article, we provide a detailed review of the policy’s history, the ongoing litigation, and the key arguments from both sides. We also share our professional opinion on the issue, emphasizing the importance of upholding statutory rights for asylum seekers. 

Historical Background of the Metering Policy

The metering policy originated during the Obama administration in 2016, amid a surge of asylum seekers, particularly Haitians arriving at the San Ysidro port of entry in Southern California. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents were instructed to limit the number of individuals processed daily, effectively turning away those without valid travel documents by citing port capacity constraints. This practice was not formally codified at the time but was implemented as a response to resource limitations. 

Under the Trump administration in 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) formalized metering through official guidance distributed to all southern border ports. Agents were directed to identify potential asylum seekers and prevent them from physically entering U.S. territory if the port was deemed “at capacity.” This meant that migrants were often forced to wait in Mexico for extended periods—sometimes weeks or months—exposing them to dangers such as violence, exploitation, and harsh living conditions. 

In 2019, the Trump administration layered additional restrictions, including the “transit rule,” which barred asylum eligibility for migrants who passed through other countries without seeking protection there first. While the transit rule was later revoked in 2023 under the Biden administration, metering continued until its formal repeal in 2021. 

The Biden administration shifted toward alternatives like the CBP One app, which allows migrants to schedule asylum appointments digitally. However, these measures have faced their own legal challenges, and the metering policy’s legacy persists in ongoing debates about border control. 

The core legal foundation for asylum claims stems from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), which states that any individual “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States… whether or not at a designated port of arrival” may apply for asylum if they demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 

The Litigation: Al Otro Lado and Asylum Seekers Challenge the Policy

The case at the heart of this Supreme Court review began in 2017 when the nonprofit immigrant rights organization Al Otro Lado, along with 13 individual asylum seekers, filed a class-action lawsuit challenging metering as a violation of federal law. The plaintiffs argued that turning away asylum seekers at ports of entry unlawfully denied them the right to seek protection, even if they had not yet crossed into U.S. territory. 

A federal district court certified a class of affected asylum seekers—those who arrived before the 2019 transit rule—and issued a permanent injunction in 2022, prohibiting the government from enforcing asylum denials against this group. This ruling allowed previously denied claims to be reopened under pre-metering guidelines. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision in a 2024 opinion (Abigail Doe v. Wolf, later consolidated). The panel rejected the government’s argument that turned-away migrants were not “present” in the U.S. and thus ineligible for asylum protections. Instead, the court emphasized that the INA’s language applies to individuals “arriving” at the border, regardless of whether they have been allowed to step foot on U.S. soil. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling invalidated metering as an illegal barrier to statutory asylum rights, noting that it undermined Congress’s intent to provide a pathway for those fleeing persecution. 

The government, now under the Trump administration, petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse this decision. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued in November 2025 that border management is a prerogative of the executive and legislative branches, not the judiciary. He contended that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling “undercuts Congress’ authority to set asylum policy” and “severely intrudes on the executive branch’s prerogative to manage our country’s borders.” The petition also warned that upholding the Ninth Circuit could jeopardize modern tools like the CBP One app by limiting the government’s flexibility in processing migrants. 

In opposition, attorneys for the asylum seekers, including Kelsi Brown Corkran from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, maintained that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is narrow, applying only to a specific subset of migrants affected by metering. They argued that resolving the case would amount to an “advisory opinion” since the policy has been rescinded, and current border challenges do not hinge on this exact issue. 

Key Arguments Before the Supreme Court

As the case heads to oral arguments (date yet to be scheduled in early 2026), the central question is whether federal law permits immigration officials to turn away asylum seekers at ports of entry without processing their claims. Here’s a breakdown of the main arguments:

  • Government’s Position: The administration asserts that metering is a necessary tool for managing limited resources and preventing overwhelming surges at ports. They argue that asylum rights under the INA only activate once an individual is physically present in the U.S., and turning people away at the borderline does not violate this. Reviving metering, they claim, aligns with constitutional separation of powers and allows for effective border security. Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin emphasized that the Trump administration has “advanced the clear meaning of federal law and basic common sense” from the outset.
  • Asylum Seekers’ Position: Plaintiffs contend that metering directly contravenes the INA by creating an extralegal barrier to asylum applications. The Ninth Circuit correctly interpreted “arriving” to include those presenting at ports, they argue, and any policy that systematically denies access is unlawful. Supporters highlight the human cost: turned-away migrants face heightened risks in Mexico, including cartel violence and inadequate shelter, which undermines the U.S.’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority may lean toward the government’s view, given recent precedents favoring executive discretion in immigration enforcement (e.g., Biden v. Texas on the Migrant Protection Protocols). However, the case could hinge on statutory interpretation, potentially leading to a narrower ruling. 

Implications for Asylum Seekers and Border Policy

If the Supreme Court overturns the Ninth Circuit, metering could be reinstated, allowing the current administration to limit asylum processing at ports amid ongoing migration pressures. This might reduce irregular border crossings but could exacerbate humanitarian crises in Mexican border towns. Conversely, upholding the ruling would reinforce asylum access, potentially increasing processing demands on CBP and prompting further policy innovations like expanded digital appointments. 

Related policies, such as the now-revoked transit rule, illustrate a pattern of layered restrictions. A class of asylum seekers from pre-2019 arrivals has already benefited from the injunction, with claims reopened—highlighting how litigation can retroactively provide relief. 

Our Opinion at MyAttorneyUSA.com

As immigration attorneys committed to advocating for the rights of those seeking refuge, we strongly support the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and urge the Supreme Court to affirm it. The metering policy, while presented as a practical measure, fundamentally undermines the statutory right to seek asylum enshrined in the INA. Turning away vulnerable individuals at the border—often families fleeing persecution, violence, or economic collapse—does not align with America’s long-standing tradition as a beacon for the oppressed. It exposes migrants to unnecessary dangers and erodes trust in the U.S. immigration system. 

From our experience representing clients in asylum cases, we have seen firsthand how such policies delay justice and compound trauma. The government’s argument for unchecked executive authority overlooks Congress’s clear intent to protect arrivals at ports of entry. While border management is essential, it must not come at the expense of human rights or legal obligations. Alternatives like the CBP One app show that innovation is possible without resorting to blanket denials. 

We believe the Supreme Court’s decision should prioritize fidelity to the law over political expediency. If metering is revived, it could deter legitimate claims and invite further abuses. For those affected, we recommend consulting an experienced immigration attorney immediately to explore options, including potential class-action eligibility or alternative pathways. 

For more in-depth information on asylum law and related topics, please see these relevant articles previously published on our site:

At MyAttorneyUSA.com, we stand ready to assist with asylum applications, appeals, and policy navigation. Contact us today for a consultation—your path to protection starts with informed advocacy. 

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration laws are subject to change, and individual cases vary.