Noem v. Al Otro Lado
No. 25-5 · October Term 2025 · Civil Rights · decided June 25, 2026
Decided: Noem won 6-3. The model was right.
Expected vote 6–3 for Noem. Chance of a unanimous ruling 34%. FantasySCOTUS crowd: 68% Noem.
The case
The Secretary of Homeland Security is appealing a Ninth Circuit decision that found the government's "metering" policy at the U.S.-Mexico border unlawful. This policy prevented asylum seekers from physically entering the U.S. to apply for asylum, often forcing them to wait in Mexico for extended periods. The Supreme Court must now determine whether an alien stopped on the Mexican side of the border has "arrived in the United States" for the purpose of applying for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- Does being stopped at the physical boundary line on the Mexican side of the border constitute "arriving in the United States" under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
- What is the proper interpretation of "arrives in the United States" in the context of asylum applications and mandatory inspection by immigration officers?
- How does the government's "metering" policy interact with statutory requirements for asylum seekers and the Administrative Procedure Act?
- To what extent can the government apply the "Asylum Transit Rule" to individuals who were turned away under the metering policy before the rule's enactment?
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
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.
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Beginning in 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented a “metering” policy at ports of entry along the United States-Mexico border to manage asserted capacity constraints. CBP officers stationed at the physical boundary line turned away asylum seekers lacking valid travel documents, preventing them from stepping onto U.S. soil to undergo mandatory inspection and processing. These officials instructed migrants to return to Mexico and wait for future processing opportunities, often without providing specific appointment times, forcing numerous asylum seekers to endure prolonged delays in Mexican border towns where they faced significant safety risks. While these asylum seekers waited, the federal government promulgated the “Asylum Transit Rule” in 2019, which generally rendered noncitizens ineligible for asylum if they traveled through a third country without first seeking protection there. This regulatory change prejudiced individuals previously turned away under the metering policy because, had CBP processed them upon their initial arrival, the Transit Rule would not have applied to their claims. Al Otro Lado, a legal aid organization, joined thirteen individual asylum seekers to file a class-action lawsuit challenging the metering policy and seeking to prevent the government from applying the Transit Rule to those who attempted to enter before its enactment. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California declared the metering policy unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and permanently enjoined the government from applying the Asylum Transit Rule to class members . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the policy unlawfully withheld mandatory agency action, but narrowed the injunction to prevent the district court from forcing the government to unilaterally reopen past asylum denials.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Civil Rights cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court liberal | At argument | Voted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often prioritizes judicial restraint and deference to executive branch agencies in immigration matters, which could lead him to favor the government's interpretation of border arrival. However, he also considers the plain text of statutes, which could be a factor in defining "arrives in the United States." | 76% Noem | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 248 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | 13 / 15 questions at Noem / Al | Noem ✓ |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas typically adheres to a strict textualist approach and often defers to the executive branch on immigration policy, suggesting he would likely side with the government's position on the definition of "arrives in the United States." He has consistently supported broad executive authority in immigration enforcement. | 79% Noem | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Civil Rights · 464 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | 1 / 1 questions at Noem / Al | Noem ✓ |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally favors a robust view of executive power, particularly in national security and immigration contexts, and often interprets statutes narrowly to support government enforcement actions. His jurisprudence suggests a likely inclination to support the government's interpretation of "arrives in the United States." | 79% Noem | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Civil Rights · 244 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | 3 / 3 questions at Noem / Al | Noem ✓ |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often emphasizes the rights of individuals and has been a strong voice for due process, especially in immigration cases. She is likely to scrutinize government actions that limit access to asylum procedures and could interpret "arrives in the United States" broadly to protect asylum seekers. | 61% Al Otro Lado | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 61% Civil Rights · 192 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | 22 / 10 questions at Noem / Al | Al Otro Lado ✓ |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often seeks to balance statutory text with legislative intent and practical implications, and she has shown a willingness to consider the real-world impact of government policies. Her approach might lead her to consider whether the metering policy effectively circumvented the intent of asylum laws. | 59% Noem | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 60% Civil Rights · 171 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | 15 / 9 questions at Noem / Al | Al Otro Lado ✗ |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a textualist who often emphasizes the separation of powers and has, at times, been skeptical of broad agency deference. While he might lean towards a strict reading of "arrives in the United States," his past opinions also show a concern for administrative overreach, which could be relevant to the Administrative Procedure Act claims. | 88% Noem | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 99 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | 0 / 31 questions at Noem / Al | Noem ✓ |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often takes a pragmatic approach, balancing statutory text with administrative feasibility and deference to agency expertise. He has generally supported executive authority in immigration, but also considers the clarity of statutory mandates, which could influence his view on what constitutes "arrives in the United States." | 79% Noem | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 64% Civil Rights · 83 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | 13 / 15 questions at Noem / Al | Noem ✓ |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett is a textualist who often emphasizes the plain meaning of statutory language and has generally shown deference to the executive branch in immigration matters. Her focus on textual interpretation would be key in defining "arrives in the United States" based on the statutory language. | 79% Noem | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 72% Civil Rights · 61 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | 8 / 12 questions at Noem / Al | Noem ✓ |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often focuses on the practical implications of legal interpretations and has a strong background in administrative law, which could lead her to carefully examine the legality of the metering policy under the Administrative Procedure Act. She is likely to consider the impact on individuals seeking asylum. | 52% Al Otro Lado | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 47% Civil Rights · 38 votes | 38% lower court liberal · 108 votes | 22 / 16 questions at Noem / Al | Al Otro Lado ✓ |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.