U.S. Supreme Court to hear asylum case Tuesday

In a brief to the court, lawyers for the immigration advocates said border patrol officers standing on the U.S. side of the border “identified asylum seekers, and prevented them from stepping onto U.S. soil.”

The 1990 Immigration and Nationality Act allows an individual who “arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum status and be inspected by an immigration officer.

The case hinges on the definition of the term “arrives.” Lawyers for the Trump administration argue standing on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border is not sufficient to determine arrival.

“An alien stopped at the border in Mexico is definitionally not in the United States and therefore is not afforded what one would get were that alien in the United States,” said Eric Wessan, solicitor general in the Iowa Office of the Attorney General.

Wessan also argued that the executive branch is given constitutional authority to manage disputes that occur on the country’s borders.

Lawyers for the immigration advocates argued that the term “arrive” refers to a broader process that simply begins at the port of entry. They argued that longstanding interpretations of asylum law do not differentiate between what side of the border an individual is on.

“Federal immigration law requires inspection of all aliens who are applicants for admission,” Wessan said. “Once an individual presents himself at a port seeking entry, he becomes an applicant and the government cannot simply refuse to acknowledge the presence to avoid the statutory processing requirement.”

The way justices respond to this case could reveal a unique positioning for Trump v. Barbara, a landmark decision to determine the future of birthright citizenship in the United States. The case gets to the heart of the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted to guarantee citizenship for individuals born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

While the amendment was designed to confer citizenship for newly freed slaves, it became a landmark piece of legislation for immigration law and citizenship status generally.

“It seems unlikely that the 14th Amendment was intended to serve as a magnet for birth tourism or to reward illegal reentry,” Wessan said.

The Trump administration’s outcome in Noem v. Al Otro Lado could be a precursor to how the high court approaches the topic of birthright citizenship. Either way, Noem v. Al Otro Lado will fundamentally affect how the government approaches asylum processing.

“An ordinary English speaker would not use the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ to describe someone who is stopped in Mexico,” lawyers for the government said in a brief to the court.

Justices on the court will likely decide the case by the end June.