Noem v. Al Otro Lado
Decision
6-3BrynoDC Coverage 2 videos
Opinion of the Court
Overview
Overview
During the Biden administration, the government adopted a practice of 'metering'. Limiting how many asylum seekers could present themselves at ports of entry each day and turning away the rest. People who were turned away and returned to Mexico sued, arguing they had a right under the asylum statute to claim protection at the border. The case turns on what 'arrives in the United States' means in the asylum law. Whether turning up at a port of entry counts, or whether you have to physically cross into U.S. Territory first. The government is expected to win 6-3 or 5-4. Bryan covers it as a case that will determine what access to the asylum process actually looks like going forward.
The Facts
Facts
During the Biden administration, border officials adopted 'metering'. Limiting the number of asylum seekers permitted to present at ports of entry each day and turning back the rest to wait in Mexico. Migrants who were turned away sued, arguing that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives them a statutory right to present themselves at any port of entry to request asylum, and that metering violated that right. The question is whether the INA creates such a right and whether the government's informal practice was lawful.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the Immigration and Nationality Act's provision that noncitizens 'may apply for asylum' at a port of entry creates a judicially enforceable right to present, or whether executive metering policies, limiting daily asylum presentations, fall within unreviewable agency discretion over port-of-entry operations.
The Rules
Rule
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), any alien present in or arriving in the United States may apply for asylum, regardless of immigration status. Agency action is subject to APA review (5 U.S.C. § 706) unless a statute commits the action to agency discretion by law or bars judicial review. DHS's broad statutory authority over border security includes managing the physical flow of persons at ports of entry.
The Application
Analysis
The government argues DHS has broad operational authority to manage border processing, including limiting when and how asylum seekers can present claims at ports of entry. Port closures and the terminated CBP One app are exercises of executive discretion over immigration enforcement, not violations of the INA's asylum provisions.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
[Awaiting opinion]
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support