The Supreme Court ruled on June 25, 2026, that asylum seekers must physically cross into the United States to apply for asylum. This decision affects many individuals attempting to seek refuge at the U.S.-Mexico border, clarifying when an alien is considered to have 'arrived' in the country under immigration law.
The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (Docket No. 25-5), centers on the interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. The ruling has significant implications for U.S. border policy and the treatment of asylum seekers, especially in light of past practices that limited their ability to apply for asylum.
Background
The parties involved in this case include Markwayne Mullin, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and Al Otro Lado, a California-based immigration advocacy organization. The dispute arose from a policy implemented by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in 2016, which limited the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter the U.S. for processing each day. This policy, known as 'metering,' was a response to a surge in individuals seeking asylum at the border.
In 2017, Al Otro Lado and a group of asylum seekers filed a class-action lawsuit against the government in the Southern District of California. They argued that the metering policy unlawfully denied access to the asylum process for individuals who arrived at the border. The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that the government's denial of inspection and asylum processing was unlawful. This ruling was later upheld by a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court's decision reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, stating that an alien does not 'arrive in the United States' until they physically cross the border. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, emphasized that 'a person arrives in a geographic location only when he enters it.' He noted that the ordinary meaning of 'arrives in' aligns with this interpretation, stating, 'An alien standing in Mexico does not “arriv[e] in the United States” by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country.'
The Court's ruling clarified that the INA does not entitle individuals who are still in Mexico to apply for asylum or require immigration officers to inspect them. The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. It reinforces the government's ability to control the flow of individuals seeking asylum, as only those who physically enter the U.S. will be considered for inspection and processing. The decision may lead to continued enforcement of policies like metering, which the government has indicated it may resume in the future if border conditions warrant it.
Additionally, the ruling sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of the INA, emphasizing the importance of physical presence in the U.S. for asylum applications. This may affect future cases involving immigration law and the treatment of asylum seekers, as it limits the circumstances under which individuals can claim asylum based on their location.
What's Next
While the Supreme Court's ruling is final, the case could still have implications for future immigration policy and practices at the border. The government may seek to implement new policies regarding asylum processing, and there could be related cases pending that address similar issues. However, the specific details of any future cases were not available in the court filing.