{"id":2583121,"date":"2026-03-24T06:24:01","date_gmt":"2026-03-24T10:24:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-consider-when-asylum-seekers-have-arrived-in-the-us\/"},"modified":"2026-03-24T06:26:16","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T10:26:16","slug":"supreme-court-to-consider-when-asylum-seekers-have-arrived-in-the-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-consider-when-asylum-seekers-have-arrived-in-the-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to consider when asylum-seekers have arrived in the US"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-to-consider-when-asylum-seekers-have-arrived-in-the-us%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2583121&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The article notes that the Supreme Court will hear Noem v.Al otro Lado, a key border policy case about whether asylum seekers who are stopped in Mexico before reaching U.S. soil can seek asylum from the Mexican side. The central issue is the Trump-era \u201cmetering\u201d policy, which limited how many migrants could present themselves at U.S.ports of entry to pursue asylum. Although the second term administration has not revived the policy, the Justice Department argues it could remain effective if reinstated and asks the Court to reverse a Ninth Circuit ruling that migrants who arrive on the Mexican side are within the asylum process. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contends that \u201carrives in the United States\u201d means entering within U.S. borders, not being stopped in Mexico, and he points to the Supreme Court\u2019s Sale v. Haitian Centers Council decision to support the stance that migrants intercepted before reaching U.S. soil are not entitled to asylum processing there. The article explains that the DOJ believes controlling border surges and avoiding overcrowding at ports of entry justify reverting the Ninth Circuit decision,while migrant advocates argue the ruling aligns with decades of regulations and practice. A decision is expected by the end of June.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-header-search-button-mob dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search\" aria-labelledby=\"td-header-search-button\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search-inner\">\n<form method=\"get\" class=\"tdb-search-form\" action=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\"><\/form>\n<div class=\"tdb-aj-search\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/#\" role=\"button\" aria-label=\"Search\" class=\"tdb-head-search-btn dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<h1 class=\"tdb-title-text\">Supreme Court to consider when asylum-seekers at the border have arrived in the US<\/h1>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-title-line\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div id=\"Brid_2541392\" class=\"tpd-featured-video bridtv\"><\/div>\n<p>The <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"203\">Supreme Court<\/a> will hear arguments Tuesday in a key <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/border\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"280\">border<\/a> policy case over whether migrants at the border can seek asylum from the Mexican side if they are stopped from reaching U.S. soil to make their claim. <\/p>\n<p>The first-term <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/trump-administration\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"339\">Trump administration&rsquo;s<\/a> formalized &ldquo;metering&rdquo; policy at the border to prevent migrant surges from overwhelming federal immigration officials is at the center of the case <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3889120\/supreme-court-review-legality-metering-policy-asylum-seekers-at-border\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3889120\/supreme-court-review-legality-metering-policy-asylum-seekers-at-border\/\">Noem v. Al Otro Lado<\/a><\/em>. While the second term of the Trump administration has not attempted to revive the policy, which was rescinded by former President&nbsp;Joe Biden, the<a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/justice-department\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"167\"> Justice Department<\/a> is seeking to allow the policy to remain effective if reinstated.<\/p>\n<div class=\"recommended-stories\">\n<h2>Recommended Stories<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4500834\/ketanji-brown-jackson-rnc-mail-ballots\/\">Ketanji Brown Jackson accuses RNC of wanting Supreme Court to do Congress&#8217;s job on mail ballot laws<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4500633\/alito-concerned-late-ballots-undermine-confidence-elections\/\">Samuel Alito concerned late-arriving ballot laws could undermine confidence in elections<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4500536\/supreme-court-counting-late-mail-ballots-undermine-concept-election-day\/\">Supreme Court worried that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/election-lawsuits-poised-to-ramp-up-after-supreme-court-ruling\/\" title=\"Election lawsuits poised to ramp up after ... ruling\">counting late mail ballots<\/a> could undermine concept of &#8216;Election Day&#8217;<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<p>Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-5\/390940\/20260106152523401_25-5AlOtroLadoPetBr.pdf\">in his brief<\/a> to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit&rsquo;s 2024 ruling finding that, under federal law, a migrant who &ldquo;arrives in the United States&rdquo; and must have asylum claims heard by a <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >federal immigration officer includes people<\/a> who are on the Mexican side of the border.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;That decision is incorrect. In ordinary English, a person &lsquo;arrives in&rsquo; a country only when he comes within its borders. A person does not &lsquo;arrive in the United States&rsquo; if he is stopped in Mexico,&rdquo; Sauer wrote.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;Under the presumption against extraterritoriality, moreover, statutes apply only in the United States unless they clearly indicate that they apply abroad. But &lsquo;arrives in the United States&rsquo; does not plausibly, much less clearly, mean &lsquo;stopped in Mexico,&#8217;&rdquo; he added.<\/p>\n<p>The Department of Justice also <span style=\"box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;\">cited the Supreme Court&rsquo;s 1993 ruling in&nbsp;<em>Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc.<\/em>, which found that migrants intercepted in the ocean before reaching U.S. soil are not required to have their asylum claims heard or to be inspected by federal immigration officers, to support<\/span> its stance.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;<em>Sale<\/em>&rsquo;s logic confirms that the immigration laws at issue here likewise do not protect aliens who are stopped on land before reaching U.S. soil,&rdquo; Sauer wrote.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;Administrations of both major parties have opposed the decision, which deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and preventing overcrowding at ports of entry. This Court should reverse,&rdquo; Sauer wrote, noting the &ldquo;metering&rdquo; policy began during the Obama administration before being formalized under the first Trump administration.<\/p>\n<p>The migrant advocacy group suing the Trump administration over the policy urged the Supreme Court in their brief to uphold the Ninth Circuit&rsquo;s ruling, claiming that the DOJ&rsquo;s stance on what <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/immigration\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"8775\">federal immigration law<\/a> states &ldquo;transforms the statutes&rsquo; inspection and processing mandates into mere suggestions that immigration officers can ignore at their discretion.&rdquo; The brief also claims the stance of rejecting asylum seekers from being inspected at the border by physically blocking them from reaching U.S. soil is &ldquo;contrary to the government&rsquo;s own decades-old regulations and more than a century of practice.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>The brief from Al Otro Lado also claims the DOJ has &ldquo;greatly&rdquo; exaggerated the impact of the Ninth Circuit&rsquo;s ruling, saying it only affects the defunct policy rather than having wider ramifications for border operations.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;Petitioners abandoned the challenged turnback policy more than four years ago and only sought this Court&rsquo;s review on the off chance they might want to revive it in the future,&rdquo; the brief said. &ldquo;The decision below, moreover, holds only that &sect;&sect; 1225 and 1158 do not permit petitioners to withhold inspection and asylum processing from noncitizens who arrive at ports of entry; it does not foreclose reasonable delays in inspection and processing, nor does it bear on other statutory authorities for addressing specific scenarios at the border.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p><strong><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4500536\/supreme-court-counting-late-mail-ballots-undermine-concept-election-day\/\">SUPREME COURT WORRIED THAT COUNTING LATE MAIL BALLOTS COULD UNDERMINE CONCEPT OF &lsquo;ELECTION DAY&rsquo;<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases beginning at 10 a.m. Tuesday, with arguments in <em>Noem v. Al Otro Lado<\/em> beginning once arguments in the first case scheduled for the sitting have concluded. A ruling in the case is expected by the end of June, when the Supreme Court&rsquo;s current term ends.<\/p>\n<p>During the Supreme Court&rsquo;s current two-week argument session, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-justice-dept-asks-supreme-court-to-save-obamacare\/\" title=\"Biden Justice Dept. Asks ... to Save Obamacare\">high court heard arguments<\/a> in a case over the legality of Mississippi&rsquo;s <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4500536\/supreme-court-counting-late-mail-ballots-undermine-concept-election-day\/\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-will-consider-walking-back-campaign-spending-limits-even-further\/\" title=\"... will consider walking back campaign spending limits even further\">late-arriving mail ballot law<\/a><\/a> on Monday and will hear arguments in a case over the legality of President Donald Trump&rsquo;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/immigrant-group-suing-trump-receives-federal-funds\/\" title=\"Im... group suing Trump receives federal funds\">birthright citizenship executive order<\/a> next week. The Supreme Court is also expected to release at least one opinion in a pending case on Wednesday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>SCOTUS weighs asylum for migrants blocked at border<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2638,"featured_media":2583122,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AP25183715831554.jpg?w=696","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[29021,3813,33118,32275,76422],"class_list":["post-2583121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-asylum-seekers","tag-immigration","tag-legal-proceedings","tag-supreme-court","tag-us-immigration-policy"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AP25183715831554.jpg?w=696","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2583121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2638"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2583121"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2583121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2583125,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2583121\/revisions\/2583125"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2583122"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2583121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2583121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2583121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}