The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, the most consequential asylum case in a generation, and a majority of the justices appeared ready to rule that people stopped by U.S. officials at the Mexican border have no legal right to enter the country to pursue their claims. [1]

The case turns on a narrow but devastating question: what does it mean to "arrive in the United States" under the Immigration and Nationality Act? The INA guarantees certain procedural rights to any person who "arrives in" or "is present in" the United States. The Trump administration argues that people intercepted at or near the border — but physically on the Mexican side — have not arrived and therefore have no rights under the statute. Al Otro Lado, a legal services organization, argues that the act of presenting oneself at a port of entry constitutes arrival. [2]

During more than two hours of argument, at least five justices — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh — asked questions that suggested skepticism toward the challengers' position. Justice Kavanaugh asked whether "Congress really intended to create a constitutional right for someone standing in Mexico." Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the INA's text could be stretched to cover individuals who had not physically crossed the border. [1][3]

The liberal justices pushed back. Justice Sotomayor noted that U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers operate at ports of entry that straddle the border, and that the government's position would allow officials to deny rights simply by stopping someone a few feet earlier. Justice Jackson asked whether the government's reading would effectively nullify the asylum statute for anyone arriving by land. [1]

Lawfare's preview of the case described it as a collision between textual originalism and practical reality. The INA was written in 1952, when the concept of a person "arriving" at the border was relatively straightforward. Modern border enforcement — with metering, turnbacks, and the Remain in Mexico policy — has created situations the drafters did not anticipate. [3]

The practical stakes are enormous. A ruling for the administration would give the executive branch nearly unchecked authority to turn away asylum seekers at the southern border without any judicial review. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, whose name is on the case, has already implemented policies that the lower courts enjoined — policies that would become lawful overnight if the Court rules in her favor. [2]

SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe reported after arguments that the administration "appears likely to prevail," though she cautioned that oral arguments are not always reliable predictors. A decision is expected by late June.

-- SAMUEL CRANE, Washington