Noem, Sec. of Homeland v. Al Otro Lado - Date Argued: 03/24/26

Case Summary:In the case of Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security v. Al Otro Lado (Docket No. 25-5), argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 24, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows:Fact SummaryThe litigation is a class action challenge to the government's long-standing use of "metering" (or the "turnback policy") at Ports of Entry (POEs) along the U.S.–Mexico border.The plaintiffs, led by the non-profit organization Al Otro Lado, represent asylum seekers who reached the international boundary line at U.S. ports of entry but were told by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers that the facilities were "at capacity" and they had to wait in Mexico.A central factual and legal dispute rests on the interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1225, which mandate that any noncitizen who "arrives in the United States" or is "physically present" shall be inspected and permitted to apply for asylum.The government, represented by the Secretary of Homeland Security (Kristi Noem), argues that individuals standing on the Mexican side of the international limit line have not yet "arrived in" the United States and therefore do not trigger the mandatory processing duties of U.S. immigration officers.Al Otro Lado contends that "arrival" at a Port of Entry includes the process of presenting oneself at the boundary, and that the government’s practice of physically blocking or turning people back before they cross the literal line is an unlawful attempt to evade statutory obligations.The factual record includes evidence of the "Transit Ban" (or "Third Country Transit Rule") and how it intersected with metering; plaintiffs argue that by forcing migrants to wait in Mexico, the government intentionally subjected them to new, more restrictive asylum rules that were implemented during their forced delay.In 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that held the turnback policy was unlawful, finding that the INA's protections apply to those "in the process of arriving" at a port, regardless of which side of the painted line they are standing on.During the oral arguments on March 24, 2026, the Supreme Court justices focused heavily on the presumption against extraterritoriality—whether U.S. laws can be interpreted to govern conduct or create rights for individuals who are technically on foreign soil.The Court also scrutinized the operational realities of border management, questioning whether a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would strip the Executive Branch of its power to manage "orderly flow" and crowd control at busy international bridges.