This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral argument in Noem v. Al Otro Lado (Case No. 25-5). The case raises the question of whether a non-citizen stopped on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border can be turned back regardless of U.S. statutory or international law provisions conferring rights to asylum and protection against return to persecution or torture.
This case arose when immigrant-rights organizations challenged the federal government’s “metering policy,” which has since ended and for several years limited the number of asylum seekers processed into the United States. The policy operated to turn all but a small and arbitrary number of people seeking asylum away. Lower courts ruled that these individuals are deemed as having arrived and must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum under federal law.
Amnesty International USA, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and Physicians for Human Rights intervened as amici curiae in support of Al Otro Lado and the other Respondents, represented by Erica Ross, Grace Fuscoe, Aila Ganic, and Lauren Lehner of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and Ian Kysel of Cornell’s Transnational Disputes Clinic, with the support of Cornell law student attorney Courtney Bell.
Bringing together their collective research and expertise in the rights of asylum seekers and other migrants, amici argue that the turnback policy caused “significant physical and psychological harm to asylum seekers” and violates the United States’ international legal obligations. Drawing on stories depicting assaults, violence and extortion, amici argue in particular that the turnback policy violates the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement.
The following statements can be attributed to amici and their counsel:
“Under international law, the United States is obligated to protect people seeking safety from being returned to countries where they may face danger, but the Trump administration’s policies have ignored this and instead created a humanitarian crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border. With this case, the Court can play a critical role in preserving access to asylum at U.S. borders,” Amanda Klasing, National Director, Government Relations & Advocacy, Amnesty International USA.
“The interviews we conducted show that the turnback policy exposed asylum seekers to serious harm, including but not limited to violence, exploitation, and trauma. While they waited, asylum seekers were stuck in dangerous conditions. This case raises matters of life, death, and fundamental human rights,” Anwen Hughes, Senior Director of Legal Strategy, Refugee Programs, Human Rights First.
“This case presents the critical question of whether the government can sidestep its international and domestic legal obligations by stopping asylum seekers at the border. The law is clear that individuals who arrive at a country’s borders must be given a meaningful opportunity to seek protection from persecution and torture,” Michael Bochenek, Senior Counsel, Children’s Rights Division, Human Rights Watch.
“The health consequences of turning asylum seekers away at the border are severe and well-documented. PHR’s research and the forensic evaluations conducted by our network of clinicians consistently show that people face compounding physical and psychological harm when denied access to asylum at U.S. ports of entry. The metering policy placed people in the kinds of danger that U.S. and international law exist precisely to prevent. We hope the Supreme Court affirms that asylum seekers have the right to have their claims heard,” Payal Shah, JD, Director of Research, Legal, and Advocacy, Physicians for Human Rights.
“The legal protections giving people fleeing harm access to asylum do not exist in the abstract: they determine whether or not people will have a path to safety. Ensuring that asylum seekers can present their claims is a critical first step in upholding legal protections,” Courtney Bell, Cornell Law Student Attorney in the Cornell Law School Transnational Disputes Clinic.
This case has been set for oral argument today, March 24, 2026 and can be streamed at this link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx.
Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) is a New York-based advocacy organization that uses science and medicine to prevent mass atrocities and severe human rights violations. Learn more here.