Skip to content 
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Jackson also wrote a separate dissent.
The division immediately demonstrated how consequential the case was.
The majority focused heavily on the ordinary meaning of the statutory language.
The Court reasoned that a person does not ordinarily “arrive” in a geographic location before actually entering that location.
In the Court’s view, the statutory language therefore did not grant a person standing in Mexico the same legal status as someone who had crossed into the United States.
That interpretation allowed the Court to reverse the lower court ruling.
The case was sent back for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Why the Decision Matters
At first glance, the ruling might appear to be a technical dispute over the meaning of a single phrase.
Its practical significance is much greater.
Asylum is a form of protection available under U.S. law to certain people who fear persecution because of factors such as race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
The process generally requires an individual to come within the legal framework established by federal immigration law.
The Supreme Court’s decision addresses the point at which that statutory framework applies to someone approaching the United States from Mexico.
The majority concluded that merely standing in Mexico and attempting to enter does not trigger the relevant provisions.
That means the federal government has greater authority to prevent a person from crossing into the country before that individual has legally “arrived” under the provisions considered by the Court.
For the Trump administration, the ruling represents an important victory in its effort to expand executive authority over border enforcement.
For immigration advocates, however, the consequences are deeply troubling.
They argue that people fleeing persecution may be prevented from reaching the legal process designed to evaluate their claims.
That difference in perspective explains why the decision has generated such strong reactions.
The Meaning of “Metering”
The term “metering” may sound technical, but the underlying practice has an obvious practical effect.
Imagine a person who has traveled to the U.S.-Mexico border and is waiting to approach a port of entry.
That individual may want to request asylum.
Under the policy at issue, however, officials could limit how many people were allowed to present themselves for inspection at a given time.
People could therefore remain on the Mexican side of the border while waiting for an opportunity to enter the port.
The Supreme Court’s decision establishes that a person who remains in Mexico has not yet “arrived” in the United States under the statutory provisions at issue.
That distinction is central to the ruling.
The government argued that immigration law cannot require officers to inspect someone who has not yet entered the country.
The majority agreed.
The ruling therefore clears a legal obstacle that had prevented the government from using metering in the Ninth Circuit under the lower court’s judgment.
Supporters See a Straightforward Legal Interpretation
Supporters of the decision argue that the controversy surrounding the ruling should not obscure what they consider a straightforward principle.
Their position is that Congress wrote the immigration statutes, and courts should interpret the words Congress actually used.
The majority’s reasoning was based heavily on ordinary language.
If someone is standing outside a house and knocks on the door, supporters argue, it would ordinarily be inaccurate to say that the person has already entered the house.
The same logic, they say, can apply to a national border.
During oral arguments, Justice Alito used a similar house-and-door analogy while questioning attorneys about what it means to arrive at a location.
From this perspective, the Court did not create a new immigration policy.
Instead, it interpreted existing federal law and determined that the government’s obligations under the statutes begin once an individual has actually crossed into the United States.
Supporters also emphasize that the case concerned the meaning of particular statutory provisions rather than a broad declaration that asylum protections should disappear.
That distinction is important.
The ruling does not eliminate the U.S. asylum system.
Rather, it determines when certain statutory rights and government obligations are triggered for people approaching the border from Mexico.
Critics Warn of Serious Consequences
Immigration advocates see the issue differently.
They argue that the ruling could make it substantially harder for some people fleeing persecution to access the asylum system.
Organizations representing immigrants condemned the decision, saying it permits the government to turn away people before they can reach the point at which federal immigration law requires inspection and allows asylum claims.
The concern is particularly significant for people who have already traveled long distances to reach the border.
Many asylum seekers may have left their homes because of violence, political persecution, religious discrimination or other threats.
If they are prevented from reaching a port of entry, critics argue, they may face prolonged stays in dangerous or unstable circumstances while waiting for another opportunity.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent emphasized this concern.
She argued that Congress had created a system under which noncitizens arriving at ports of entry are subject to inspection and can seek asylum under specified conditions.
In her view, the majority’s interpretation could force people to remain outside the United States while trying to find a way to reach a place where they can be processed.
That disagreement goes to the heart of the case.
The majority focused on the geographical meaning of “arrives.”
The dissent focused more heavily on the statutory structure and the practical consequences of preventing people from accessing the asylum process.
A Debate About the Border and the Courts
The decision is also part of a much larger national argument about the role of courts in immigration policy.
Immigration has long been an area in which Congress, the executive branch and the judiciary have interacted—and sometimes clashed.
Congress writes immigration laws.
The executive branch enforces them.
Federal courts determine whether government actions comply with the Constitution and statutes.
The Supreme Court sits at the top of that judicial structure.
As a result, even a decision focused on a relatively narrow statutory question can have broad political implications.
The Mullin decision is especially significant because immigration enforcement has become one of the central policy priorities of the Trump administration.
The administration has pursued a more aggressive approach to border enforcement and deportation than the previous administration.
Court decisions therefore play an unusually important role in determining how much room the executive branch has to implement those policies.
The Ruling Does Not Mean Every Border Policy Is Automatically Legal
One important point should not be lost amid the political reaction.