Supreme Court Questions Where US Border Begins for Asylum Purposes

The Supreme Court is debating where the US border begins and when someone can claim asylum.

The Details: During oral arguments in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, the justices are being asked to consider whether migrants who reach a US port of entry but remain in Canada or Mexico are entitled to the same protections as someone within the physical US border. Immigration advocates are claiming that federal law covers all those on the "threshold" of entering America. Vivek Suri, assistant US solicitor general, is claiming that federal law distinguishes between being outside and inside the US, and therefore the law cannot apply to those who are only "on the doorstep." A decision is expected by the end of June.

Key Quotes: "How do you know under your theory when the person is close enough that we could say they have 'arrives in,' or arrived in, the destination?" said Justice Amy Coney Barrett. "How close do you have to be to the border?" Chief Justice John Roberts said, "I gather you think it makes a difference, whether there's a door or a turnstile, you have to be there. If you're at the end of a long line, you're not there. You haven't arrived at the turnstile." 

For Context: The practice of "metering," or turning back migrants before they reach the US border, was begun during the Obama administration and rescinded several years ago under President Joe Biden. President Donald Trump wants to restore it. 

How the Media Covered it: The Washington Times (Lean Right bias) called the issue "thorny," and Politico (Lean Left bias) reported that there were some "prickly moments" during the arguments. SCOTUSBlog (Center bias) ran an analysis piece that said the Supreme Court appears likely to uphold the Trump administration's policy of turning back asylum seekers before they reach the US-Mexican border.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Suggest an improvement to this summary.