Oral Argument: Noem v. Al Otro Lado | One Step From America — When Does Arrive Actually Mean Arrive?

Noem v. Al Otro Lado | Case No. 25-5 | Docket Link: Here | Oral Argument: 3/24/26

Question Presented: Whether noncitizens stopped on Mexican soil "arrive in the United States" triggering mandatory inspection and asylum-processing requirements.

Overview: Border control challenge determines whether immigration officers can block asylum seekers at ports of entry before statutory protections attach, or whether federal law requires processing anyone who presents themselves at the border.

Posture: Ninth Circuit affirmed district court; fifteen judges dissented from denial of rehearing en banc.

Oral Advocates:

1. Petitioners (Noem, et al.): Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice
2. Respondents (Al Otro Lado): Kelsi B. Corkran of the the of Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

Main Arguments:

1. Government (Petitioner): (1) Plain meaning of "arrives in" requires physical territorial entry—Greeks outside Troy's walls did not "arrive in" Troy; (2) Section 1225's inspection, detention, and removal procedures require U.S. presence—officers cannot inspect people standing in Mexico; (3) Presumption against extraterritoriality and Sale precedent confirm statutes apply only within U.S. territory.
2. Asylum Seekers (Respondent): (1) "Arrives in the United States" encompasses presentation at ports of entry to avoid rendering phrase redundant with "physically present"; (2) Congress enacted provisions to implement non-refoulement treaty obligations prohibiting return of refugees to persecution; (3) Government regulations for decades defined "arriving alien" as someone "attempting to come" into the United States at ports of entry.

Implications: Government victory preserves Executive Branch authority to manage border surges through metering, allowing officers to control entry timing at ports during capacity constraints. Asylum seeker victory requires immediate inspection and processing for anyone reaching ports of entry regardless of resources, potentially forcing facility entry to comply with statutory mandates.

The Fine Print:

1. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1): "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States...may apply for asylum"
2. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) and (a)(3): "An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States...shall be deemed...an applicant for admission" who "shall be inspected by immigration officers"

Primary Cases:

1. Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. (1993): Presumption against extraterritoriality bars applying immigration statutes to refugees interdicted at sea before reaching U.S. territory; statutes apply only within United States.
2. DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020): Arriving aliens physically on U.S. soil remain treated as stopped at the boundary line without having effected entry; arrival and admission constitute distinct legal statuses.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:01:23] Argument Begins

[00:01:29] United States Opening Statement

[00:02:40] United States Free for All Questions

[00:27:04] United States Round Robin Questions

[00:40:34] Al Otro Lado Opening Statement

[00:42:52] Al Otro Lado Free for All Questions

[01:10:56] Al Otro Lado Round Robin Questions

[01:18:32] United States Rebuttal