Al Otro Lado v. Wolf is a class action challenging how U.S. Customs and Border Protection handled asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry along the southern border. A non-profit and several individual plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security and CBP over a practice known as metering, which kept people from starting the asylum process. A federal appeals court ruled the practice unlawful, and the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the case under the caption Noem v. Al Otro Lado.1Supreme Court of the United States. Noem v. Al Otro Lado
What the Turnback Policy Did
Federal officers restricted how many people could enter ports of entry to request protection. Agents stood at the boundary line and stopped individuals from stepping onto United States soil, telling them the facilities were at capacity. That redirection kept many people from beginning the formal asylum process.
To manage who could approach a crossing station, waitlists were used to assign an order. Those lists were often kept by local Mexican authorities or third-party organizations rather than federal agents. People were told to wait in nearby Mexican cities for weeks or months until their number was called, which left many in high-risk areas during the delay.
Who the Class Covers
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of non-citizens who arrived at or were approaching a port of entry along the southern border to seek protection and were turned away or told to wait by federal agents before they could enter. It covers people who were waiting on bridges or in the immediate area near crossing stations, and whose access to processing was delayed or denied because of the metering policy.
Membership does not turn on a person’s exact physical location at the border line. It turns on whether the person was seeking safety and was stalled by officials before being processed.
What the Law Requires at the Border
Federal law says any non-citizen who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States may apply for asylum, whether or not the arrival is at a designated port of entry. The statute does not list a facility’s capacity as grounds to refuse an application.2GovInfo. 8 U.S.C. § 1158
A separate statute governs inspections. Everyone seeking admission must be inspected by an immigration officer, and if an officer finds a person lacks valid documents but expresses a fear of returning home, the officer is generally required to refer them for an asylum interview. The duty to inspect applicants for admission is mandatory.3GovInfo. 8 U.S.C. § 1225
How the Courts Have Ruled
A federal appeals court held that the metering policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act, finding that the government unlawfully withheld actions it was required to perform. The ruling means officials cannot simply refuse to process individuals who have arrived at the border to seek protection.4Justia. Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas
The lower court had also suggested that constitutional protections might reach people under the effective control of U.S. officials. The appeals court vacated that portion of the ruling, deciding it did not need to reach the constitutional question to resolve the case.4Justia. Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas
What the Supreme Court Will Decide
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to decide whether the government has a mandatory duty to inspect individuals who are stopped before they cross the border. Because review is pending, the rules governing metering at ports of entry are not yet permanently settled.1Supreme Court of the United States. Noem v. Al Otro Lado