The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case challenging a major Ninth Circuit ruling on the government’s former “metering” policy — a system that limited how many asylum seekers could be processed each day at southern border ports of entry. By taking the case, the Court will now consider the government’s argument that the Ninth Circuit’s decision has already made it much harder for the Executive Branch to manage the southern border and will continue to do so.
The dispute centers on how federal law defines when a noncitizen “arrives in the United States” for purposes of applying for asylum. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), any noncitizen “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, and § 1225(a)(1) requires inspection of such individuals. From 2016 to 2018, however, the Department of Homeland Security implemented and formalized a “metering” system. During periods of heavy migration, Customs and Border Protection officers stood at the international boundary and turned back individuals without valid travel documents — even those expressly seeking asylum — preventing them from entering U.S. territory to begin the statutory screening process.
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant-rights group, and several asylum seekers challenged the policy in federal court, arguing that it violated statutory duties to inspect and process applicants. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Judge Michelle Friedland’s majority opinion held that asylum seekers who reach the border and encounter U.S. officials have “arrived in” the United States for statutory purposes, even if physically located on the Mexican side of the line. She concluded that once an asylum seeker presents at the border, the government must inspect and process that individual.
A sharply divided Ninth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc. In dissent from that denial, Judge Daniel Bress — joined by eleven others — argued that the panel’s interpretation “violates clear statutory text,” improperly applies U.S. law extraterritorially, and radically departs from longstanding understandings limiting asylum processing obligations to persons actually within U.S. territory.
The federal government, in its petition for certiorari, echoed those objections. It argued that the Ninth Circuit had effectively rewritten Congress’s chosen phrase “arrives in the United States” to mean merely “presents at the border,” a move dissenting judges called “breathtaking” and “radical.” The Solicitor General warned that, if left intact, the ruling would deprive the Executive Branch of a critical operational tool at the border — namely, the ability to manage migrant surges by preventing entry until capacity exists to process arrivals safely. The government stressed that for decades, administrations of both parties have used such practices during periods of overcrowding.
Although the challengers urged the Court to deny review — emphasizing that the metering policy was rescinded years earlier and that the case has “almost no present implications” — the Supreme Court nonetheless agreed to take up the dispute. By issuing the writ of certiorari, the Court signaled its intention to resolve the statutory meaning of “arrives in the United States” and determine whether the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation improperly expands asylum rights and unduly restricts executive border-management authority.