Supreme Court Says Asylum Seekers Stopped on the Mexican Side of the Border Have Not 'Arrived' in the U.S.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal government can turn away asylum seekers who present themselves at official border crossings on the Mexican side of the line, holding that a person standing in Mexico has not "arrived in the United States" and so has no right under federal law to apply for asylum or be inspected by an immigration officer.

The vote in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado was 6-3, along ideological lines. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six-justice conservative majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and read part of her dissent from the bench.

What the court decided

The case turned on a single phrase in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says a noncitizen who "arrives in the United States" may apply for asylum and must be inspected. The administration argued the phrase means what it says: you have to be in the country. The challengers argued it covers people who present at a port of entry, including those waiting on the Mexican side of the crossing.

Alito sided with the government's reading.

An alien standing in Mexico does not "arriv[e] in the United States" by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien "arrives in the United States" only when he crosses the border. The INA thus neither entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him.

The practical effect is to clear the way for "metering," a practice that lets Customs and Border Protection officers cap how many asylum seekers they process at a port of entry on a given day and turn the rest back to wait in Mexico. The majority described the limit as temporary.

Metering does not permanently bar any alien from arriving and applying for asylum. It merely delays entry.

The majority also set aside the challengers' warning that the same logic could be used to block asylum seekers entirely, calling that "a hypothetical future policy, not the rescinded metering policy at issue."

What metering is, and where it came from

Metering predates the current administration. CBP first used it in 2016, under the Obama administration, to manage a surge of Haitian migrants arriving at the San Ysidro crossing in San Diego. The first Trump administration expanded and formalized it in 2018. The Biden administration rescinded it in 2021.

Because the policy was already off the books, both sides spent part of the case arguing over whether the dispute still mattered. Kelsi Brown Corkran, the attorney for Al Otro Lado, wrote in a filing that the question "has almost no present implications, and likely no future implications either." The Court took it up anyway after the federal government asked it to.

The dissent

Sotomayor's dissent ran 35 pages. She wrote that the majority read one word in isolation and ignored decades of practice by the executive branch itself.

The majority ignores the statutory context and history, not to mention the longstanding position of the Executive Branch, all of which show that any noncitizen arriving at our doorstep and seeking admission must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum, regardless of whether her foot has crossed the threshold.

She also warned the ruling gives people a reason to cross between ports of entry rather than wait at them, writing that "more people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not."

How the case got here

The immigrant rights group Al Otro Lado and 13 asylum seekers challenged metering in federal court, arguing the law requires the government to review claims from people who ask for protection at the border. A divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in October 2024, ruling that a "noncitizen stopped at the border is eligible to apply for asylum." The Supreme Court took the case after the 9th Circuit declined to reconsider.

Solicitor General John Sauer argued in filings that the appeals court ruling "deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border."

Corkran argued the government's reading would let border officers render the asylum statute "wholly inoperable at ports of entry" by "simply blocking asylum seekers from stepping on U.S. soil."

What it means going forward

The ruling does not order CBP to revive metering. It removes the legal barrier the 9th Circuit had put in place, leaving the administration free to reinstate the practice if it chooses. James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security general counsel, framed the decision as a vindication of the government's position, writing on X that "we had to go all the way to SCOTUS to vindicate the principle that an alien is not 'in the United States' until he is, in fact, in the United States."

It was the second immigration ruling the Court issued Thursday, both written by Alito. Earlier in the day the justices cleared the way for the administration to end Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria.