Challenging Unlawful “Turnbacks” of Asylum Seekers at the Border

This case challenges the U.S. government’s former “turnback” policy—also known as “metering”—under which Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers physically blocked people seeking asylum from accessing ports of entry along the U.S.–Mexico border instead of inspecting and processing them as required by law.

Since at least 2016, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and CBP turned away asylum seekers who attempted to present themselves at ports of entry, often using intimidation, misinformation, or physical force. In 2018, the government formalized this practice through a metering policy that claimed to limit access to asylum based on alleged “capacity” constraints, even when ports had available space to process people.

On July 12, 2017, Al Otro Lado and 13 individual asylum seekers filed this class action in the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs argue that the turnback policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the international law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to places where they face persecution.

The plaintiffs seek to ensure that people arriving at ports of entry have a lawful opportunity to apply for asylum, rather than being stranded in dangerous conditions in Mexico. The case also challenged the Trump-Pence administration’s 2019 “Transit Ban,” which sought to bar asylum for people who had not first sought protection in another country, often after they had already been unlawfully turned back.

In 2021, the district court ruled that the government’s systematic turnbacks violated federal law and due process, and later issued a permanent injunction barring application of the Transit Ban to affected class members. In October 2024, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed that decision, holding that the government cannot evade its legal duty to inspect and process asylum seekers simply by blocking them from stepping across the border.

Despite the Biden-Harris administration rescinding metering in November 2021, the Trump-Vance administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. In November 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, meaning it will now consider the case, and scheduled oral arguments for March 24, 2026.

Democracy Forward represents plaintiffs alongside the American Immigration Council, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.