The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take on a major immigration case that could shape how future presidents control the southern border.
The case is called Noem v. Al Otro Lado and is listed as Docket 25-5. Reuters and SCOTUS documents confirm the Court accepted it for review.
At the center of the case is a simple question that carries huge consequences.
If someone shows up at a port of entry on the U.S. Mexico border but gets turned away before stepping onto U.S. soil, has that person “arrived in the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
If the answer is yes, then border officers must inspect, process, and begin asylum steps right away.
If the answer is no, then the government may have more flexibility to control the flow of people during heavy surges.
What “Metering” Means
The case focuses on a practice known as “metering.”
The metering policy began around 2016 and continued across the Obama, Trump, and early Biden years.
Under this approach, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers would limit how many asylum seekers could enter a port of entry each day when officers said the port was at capacity.
This meant some people were told to wait on the Mexican side or return at a later time.
Ports in places like Tijuana and Nogales kept informal waitlists. Some lists had thousands of people on them.
Critics say this created dangerous conditions for families waiting in border towns.
The Straits Times noted that many migrants were stuck in unsafe areas for long periods of time.
Supporters say metering kept ports from being overwhelmed and provided order during chaotic surges.
What the Lower Courts Said
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the federal government.
It was reported that the court said the metering policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act because the law says people who “arrive in” or are present in the United States must be inspected.
The judges said attempting to arrive counts too.
The Biden administration officially rescinded metering in 2021.
Even so, the Supreme Court chose to take the case because the legal question remains unsettled and could affect how future administrations manage the border. SCOTUS will likely hear arguments in 2026 and issue a decision by next June.
What’s at Stake
For many conservatives, the heart of the case is about restoring control and common sense to an asylum system that has become strained.
When ports of entry are flooded and officers cannot keep up, it becomes harder to maintain order.
This is when illegal crossings rise, cartels take advantage, and border states feel the pressure.
A ruling that allows some form of metering would give presidents a tool to manage intake in a safe and controlled way.
It could also reduce incentives for people to cross illegally between ports.
If legal entry points are orderly and predictable, fewer people will take the dangerous route through the desert or across the Rio Grande.
Critics Say the Policy Put People at Risk
Advocacy groups argue the opposite.
They say metering leaves vulnerable people stuck in Mexico, where many face crime, homelessness, or long waits in poor conditions.
They also argue that the law requires inspection the moment someone presents themselves at the border, regardless of staffing shortages.
Their view is that the government should increase capacity, not turn people back.
When the Court Will Decide
The Supreme Court’s ruling will not bring metering back on its own. The Biden administration ended the formal policy in 2021.
But the ruling will decide whether a future president has the authority to use similar tools again.
Oral arguments are expected in early 2026, with a decision by June.
No matter how the Court rules, the outcome will help shape the next chapter of America’s border and asylum system.
For Nevadans who want a secure border and a system that works, this decision is worth watching closely.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
