Whether federal immigration officials may lawfully prevent noncitizens at the U.S.-Mexico border from applying for asylum through a 'metering' policy that restricts entry and processing of asylum claims

No question identified. : 2 (App., infra, 105a-108a) is available at 2022 WL 3970755. The court’s opinion granting declaratory relief (App., infra, 109a137a) is reported at 619 F. Supp. 3d 1029. The court’s order granting injunctive relief (App., infra, 138a-186a) is available at 2022 WL 3142610. The court’s order resolving the motions for summary judgment (App., infra, 187a-231a) is available at 2021 WL 3931890. The court’s order resolving the motion to dismiss (App., infra, 232a-316a) is reported at 394 F. Supp. 3d 1168. The court of appeals entered its judgment on October 23, 2024. Unless extended, the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari will expire on January 21, 2025. The jurisdiction of this Court would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). 1. In 2016, the United States faced unprecedented overcrowding at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) addressed that concern by adopting a practice known as metering. See App., infra, 10a. Under that practice, DHS and CBP authorized CBP officials to con-trol intake at ports of entry by standing on the U.S. side of the border and stopping noncitizens without valid travel documents from crossing the border into the United States. See ibid. DHS issued memoranda formalizing the metering policy in 2018, but later rescinded the memoranda in 2021. See id. at 10a-11a, 116a. DHS and the Department of Justice later adopted a separate regulation known as the Transit Rule. See 84 Fed. Reg. 33,829 (July 16, 2019) (interim final rule); 85 Fed. Reg. 82,260 (Dec. 3 17, 2020) (final rule). The Transit Rule generally rendered ineligible for asylum “any alien who enters, attempts to enter, or arrives in the United States across the southern land border on or after July 16, 2019, after transiting through at least one country” without applying for protection there. 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,843. That asylum bar was subsequently superseded in 2023. See 88 Fed. Reg. 31,314, 31,319 (May 16, 2023). 2. In 2017, respondents -an immigrant rights organization and 13 asylum seekers -filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. See App., infra, 11a. Respondents challenged the lawfulness of DHS’s “turnbacks” of noncitizens at the border, arguing (as relevant here) that DHS’s practice violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 701 et seq. See App., infra, 11a-12a. Respondents also later sought injunctive relief from the Transit Rule. See id. at 13a-14a. The court granted respondents’ motion for class certification. See id. at 13a. The district court entered final judgment, ruling in favor of respondents on the claims relevant here. See App., infra, 105a108a. The court concluded that “turnbacks” violated two provisions of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1), which the court interpreted to grant noncitizens on the Mexican side of the U.S.Mexico border a right to apply for asylum and to be inspected by immigration officials. See App., infra, 212a-220a. The court 4 further concluded that the government had violated the APA by unlawfully withholding agency action purportedly required by the INA (namely, inspecting the noncitizens and processing their asy-lum applications). See id. at 199a-220a. The court granted classwide declaratory relief to respondents. See id. at 135a-137a. The district court also granted permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the government from applying the Transit Rule to a subclass of individuals who had been subjected to the metering policy before the Transit Rule took effect. See App., infra, 138a186a. The court accepted respondents’ contention that the Transit Rule “would not have affected [the subclass members] but for [applicants’] illegal use of metering, which forced [the subclass members] to stay in Mexico longer than they otherwise would have.” Id. at 142a (citation omitted).