The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a key immigration case centered on border security and asylum seekers, with the court’s more conservative wing indicating that they will likely empower President Donald Trump and his administration to repel asylum seekers at the U.S. border.

The case, Kristi Noem v. Al Otro Lado, hinges on the meaning of Section 208(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the federal statute governing asylum. “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum,” the statute reads. The question before the Supreme Court is whether or not reaching the southern border is included in the statute’s term “arrives in the United States…”

Under current law, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are required to detain and inspect immigrants who arrive at a U.S. port of entry or at the border without proper admission documents, such as passports or visas. While CBP can process those immigrants for “expedited removal,” effectively turning the immigrant away without needing the approval of an immigration judge, CBP must turn over immigrants who advance asylum claims to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a “credible fear” interview, during which CBP is still expected to detain the immigrant.

In 2016, under then-President Barack Obama, CBP began a practice known as “metering,” where agents would stop immigrants from reaching the border and have them wait their turn to approach a port of entry and be processed. The Trump administration has revived that practice, but federal judges have once again curtailed the president’s actions. Late in 2024, shortly before Trump was elected again, largely on the strength of his immigration agenda, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that “metering” was likely an illegal practice, stipulating that an immigrant is considered to have “arrived in” the U.S. and may thus advance his asylum claims upon encountering a U.S. official even before crossing the border into the U.S.

“The majority’s holding is wrong, troubling, and breathtaking,” wrote Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson in a scathing dissent. “In its struggle to create ambiguity in the statutory language, the majority skips over the statute’s plain meaning, ignores a common-sense understanding of the English language, misapplies a semantic canon, disregards the typical presumption against extraterritoriality, and usurps Congress’ authority to make law,” he continued. “By so doing, the majority strikes Congress’s selected language (‘arrives in the United States,’ whether or not ‘at a designated port of arrival’) and replaces it with language of the majority’s choosing (‘stopped on the United States’ doorstep’).”

Under Trump’s second term, the issue has been elevated to the Supreme Court, where a majority of justices indicated on Tuesday that they would likely side with the administration. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom have typically served as moderate-leaning swing votes on the bench, both suggested that “arrives in,” as used in statutory text, must mean actually crossing the border into the U.S. “‘Arriving’ sounds more ‘in the process of.’ ‘Arrives in’ sounds more like ‘you’ve reached your destination,’” Barrett observed. “If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing?” Justice Neil Gorsuch made a similar point, asking if an immigrant’s asylum claims must be heard and processed if he has not yet crossed the Rio Grande, the river separating Texas from Mexico.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced firm opposition to the Trump administration’s request. “These are people who come to the line, there’s an agent standing at the line that’s open to everybody else except refugees,” Sotomayor said, characterizing the administration’s contention. “They’re letting in workers with permits to come into work, they’re letting everybody else in, but they’re not permitting the people who come to the line, to the door, and knock on it who want to claim refugee status,” she opined. “You’re saying we’re not going to inspect you.” The justice added, “If you’re a refugee who’s arriving at the port of entry, if you’re knocking on the door and I’m staring you in the face, you have an obligation to at least listen to my application.”

In comments shared with The Washington Stand, Andrew R. Arthur, resident fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies and a former immigration judge, queried, “What if an alien, standing on the Mexican banks of the Rio Grande, shouted over to agents that he intended to cross illegally to apply for asylum?” Under the ruling of the Ninth Circuit, he said, “agents would be powerless to ‘coerce or compel’ that alien to remain on the Mexican side. He is on what the majority referred to as the ‘United States’ doorstep’ and must be granted (improper) entry.”

“Taking it a step further, the same would be true if the alien were 1,000 miles away, at the Guatemalan border with Mexico, and called the local Border Patrol station in Del Rio to inform the agents that he would be at a specific spot on the banks of the Rio Grande at a time certain,” Arthur suggested. “In that instance, it would plainly be improper under such logic for the U.S. government to ask ‘partners’ on the other side to impede that alien’s progress, because if it’s illegal for our officials to do so, it would be equally illegal to ask foreign officials to do so at our behest.”

“So long as Al Otro Lado remains good law in the Ninth Circuit, it could be cited there and elsewhere for the proposition that an alien just about to enter the United States illegally has already arrived in this country, and therefore the asylum provisions in section 208(a)(1) of the INA require CBP to usher the alien in,” Arthur warned. “Ideally, moral suasion would deter aliens from violating our national sovereignty by entering illegally. Suasion has never been a silver bullet in the past and is only effective now to the degree migrants know Trump’s CBP will back up his rhetoric with action,” he continued. “Can DHS use force to deter aliens at the nation’s ‘doorstep’ from coming in the back door? Once the justices rule in Al Otro Lado, we will know for sure, one way or the other.”