Skip to content 
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a major and controversial ruling that could reshape how asylum seekers are treated at the southern border, drawing sharply different reactions from the federal government, immigration advocates and members of the Court itself.
In a 6–3 decision issued June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that a person standing in Mexico who is attempting to enter the United States has not yet legally “arrived” in the country for purposes of key federal immigration statutes. As a result, the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require immigration officers to inspect that person or permit an asylum application while the individual remains on the Mexican side of the border.
The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, arose from a dispute over a border practice known as “metering,” under which U.S. officials limited the number of people allowed to approach ports of entry for processing during periods of heavy migration.
The decision has become controversial not simply because of its immediate legal consequences, but because of what critics and supporters believe it says about the government’s authority at the border.
For supporters, the ruling represents a straightforward interpretation of the words Congress used in federal immigration law. For critics, it removes an important protection for people seeking asylum and potentially permits the government to prevent vulnerable people from reaching the point at which federal asylum protections become available.
At the center of the disagreement is a deceptively simple question: When does someone “arrive” in the United States?
The Supreme Court has now provided its answer.
The Case Behind the Ruling
The dispute involved a policy developed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 2016, during the Obama administration.
At the time, officials faced periods in which large numbers of people seeking admission were arriving at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. According to the Supreme Court’s description of the case, the numbers could exceed the government’s safe and secure processing capacity.
In response, the Department of Homeland Security implemented a system commonly called “metering.”
Under that system, officials controlled the number of people who could approach ports of entry for processing on a given day. People who were waiting in Mexico could be told that they would have to wait before being permitted to enter the port and seek inspection.
The policy eventually became the subject of legal challenges.
Al Otro Lado, a nonprofit organization that provides legal services to migrants, became involved in litigation challenging the government’s treatment of people waiting at the border.
The central legal argument was that federal immigration law imposed obligations on immigration officers toward people who had presented themselves at the border and were attempting to seek admission and asylum.
The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Rather than simply asking whether the government’s policy was politically desirable, the justices were asked to interpret specific language contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
That language refers to a person who “arrives in the United States.”
The question was whether someone standing in Mexico, immediately at the border and attempting to enter, could legally be considered to have arrived.
The Supreme Court said no.
A 6–3 Decision
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion.
He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Thomas also wrote separately.