Skip to content 
The disagreement is over what it means.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado represents an important development in U.S. immigration law.
The Court held that a person standing in Mexico does not legally “arrive” in the United States for purposes of the specific Immigration and Nationality Act provisions at issue until crossing the border. That means those provisions do not themselves require immigration officers to inspect a person standing in Mexico or permit that person to apply for asylum at that point.
The decision gives the federal government greater legal room to control access to ports of entry and potentially revive forms of metering.
At the same time, it has generated serious concerns among immigration advocates and three members of the Court, who argued that the decision weakens protections Congress established for people seeking asylum.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the ruling reflects a much larger question.
How should the United States balance sovereign control of its borders with its legal and humanitarian responsibilities toward people seeking protection?
The Supreme Court has now provided its answer to one important part of that question.
But the broader debate over America’s immigration system—and the rights and responsibilities that come with crossing its borders—is certain to continue.