Case: Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Al Otro Lado, a California Corporation, et al., No. 25-5
Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-07-01
Status: Granted
Question Presented: The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., provides that an alien who "arrives in the United States" may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A), 1225(a)(1) and (3). The question presented is whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border "arrives in the United States" within the meaning of those provisions.
On March 9, 2026, the government filed its reply brief in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, completing the merits briefing in a case that turns on a single statutory phrase. The reply responds to arguments from respondents and a substantial amicus showing, including briefs from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, bipartisan former officials of the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Justice, Amnesty International USA, and immigration law professors. The breadth of that coalition reflects how much turns on the Court’s answer. See the full docket at the Supreme Court’s docket page.
The legal question is one of statutory interpretation: what geographic and legal meaning does “arrives in the United States” carry under 8 U.S.C. 1158 and 1225? The government contends that physical presence on U.S. soil is required. Respondents argue that functional arrival at a port of entry suffices. The Court’s resolution will determine whether the INA’s asylum and inspection provisions attach before a person crosses the border line itself.
The practical stakes are considerable. A ruling for the government would confirm that officers may turn back migrants at the port threshold without triggering statutory asylum obligations. A ruling for respondents would constrain that practice. For background on the case’s history, the Oyez summary provides a useful overview.