The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on 17 November to hear Noem v. Al Otro Lado, a case challenging the legality of “metering,” a policy that lets U.S. border officers turn away asylum seekers at ports of entry when officials claim they have no processing capacity. First used in 2016, metering expanded dramatically during former President Trump’s first term before being rescinded in 2021. The Justice Department, however, argues the tool remains vital for handling future migrant surges and wants clarity on its legality.
The Ninth Circuit ruled last year that asylum seekers prevented from stepping onto U.S. soil were nevertheless “arriving” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, making metering unlawful. Business groups that depend on cross-border commuters fear reinstatement could create chaotic backlogs at busy commercial crossings such as San Ysidro and Laredo, delaying executives and truck drivers alike.
![Supreme Court to Decide Whether Border ‘Metering’ Policy Can Return]()
Oral arguments are expected in early 2026, with a decision by June. If the Court sides with the administration, CBP could re-impose daily caps at designated ports, redirecting thousands of asylum seekers to makeshift waiting lists in Mexican border cities—conditions that previously triggered humanitarian and security concerns for nearby maquiladoras and U.S. suppliers.
Global mobility managers should monitor the docket: metering would not directly change corporate visa categories but could spark broader infrastructure slow-downs affecting cargo, employee transfers and SENTRI/FAST lane operations. Firms may need contingency routing for time-sensitive cross-border movements.
The case also signals the Court’s willingness to revisit long-settled interpretations of “entry” under U.S. immigration law. A ruling narrowly limiting the definition could ripple beyond asylum to affect parole programs, humanitarian exceptions, and even remote inspection pilots at pre-clearance sites.
The Ninth Circuit ruled last year that asylum seekers prevented from stepping onto U.S. soil were nevertheless “arriving” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, making metering unlawful. Business groups that depend on cross-border commuters fear reinstatement could create chaotic backlogs at busy commercial crossings such as San Ysidro and Laredo, delaying executives and truck drivers alike.
Oral arguments are expected in early 2026, with a decision by June. If the Court sides with the administration, CBP could re-impose daily caps at designated ports, redirecting thousands of asylum seekers to makeshift waiting lists in Mexican border cities—conditions that previously triggered humanitarian and security concerns for nearby maquiladoras and U.S. suppliers.
Global mobility managers should monitor the docket: metering would not directly change corporate visa categories but could spark broader infrastructure slow-downs affecting cargo, employee transfers and SENTRI/FAST lane operations. Firms may need contingency routing for time-sensitive cross-border movements.
The case also signals the Court’s willingness to revisit long-settled interpretations of “entry” under U.S. immigration law. A ruling narrowly limiting the definition could ripple beyond asylum to affect parole programs, humanitarian exceptions, and even remote inspection pilots at pre-clearance sites.
