The federal asylum statute says any noncitizen “physically present in the United States” or who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum. The fight in this case is about whether someone stopped on the Mexican side of the border by a U.S. officer has “arrived” in the United States. The answer matters because of a Customs and Border Protection policy called “metering,” under which officers turned away asylum seekers lacking travel documents before they could cross.
The immigrant-rights group Al Otro Lado sued on behalf of a class of asylum seekers turned away under metering. The district court held the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and a divided Ninth Circuit panel largely affirmed—to “arrive” is to encounter a U.S. official, even if near but not within the U.S. borders. During argument, most justices appeared skeptical of that interpretation of the statute.
The model predicts a 7-2 reversal. It is also quite possible this turns out to split along conventional ideological lines.
vote predictions
