Supreme Court Rules Asylum Seekers Standing in Mexico Have Not "Arrived" in the U.S.

WASHINGTON, June 25, 2026 — A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that migrants who present themselves at a port of entry but are physically blocked from stepping onto American soil have not "arrived in the United States" under federal immigration law, and therefore are not entitled to inspection or the chance to apply for asylum.

The 6-3 decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado reverses a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and hands the government a significant victory in its long-running dispute over "metering," a practice in which Customs and Border Protection officers stand at the border line and turn back migrants before they can cross.

The Core Question

The case turned on a single phrase appearing in two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act: "arrives in the United States." Federal law requires immigration officers to inspect any noncitizen who "arrives in the United States" and permits such a person to apply for asylum. The justices had to decide whether a migrant standing on the Mexican side of the border, blocked by a U.S. official, has legally "arrived."

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the answer is no. "In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person 'arrives in' a place, for example, a house, a city, or a country, before the person enters that place," he wrote. An alien "arrives in the United States only when he crosses the border."

Alito leaned heavily on everyday illustrations, reasoning that a running back does not arrive in the end zone when tackled at the one-yard line, and a guest does not arrive in a house by knocking on a locked door. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Background: The Metering Policy

The dispute traces back to 2016, when CBP began experiencing surges of migrants at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border that the agency said exceeded its processing capacity. In response, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a policy of "metering," limiting the number of arriving migrants officers would inspect each day, with officials physically stationed at the border to prevent additional entries. The practice continued across multiple presidential administrations before being rescinded in November 2021, shortly after a district court ruled it unlawful.

The advocacy organization Al Otro Lado, along with individual asylum seekers, brought a class action in 2017 arguing that metering unlawfully withheld inspection and asylum processing from migrants seeking to enter. A district court agreed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that a migrant "arrives" when, while standing on the Mexico side, they encounter a U.S. official at the border.

The Majority's Reasoning

Beyond the ordinary meaning of the words, Alito pointed to several contextual signals. Other parts of the immigration code explicitly reference "attempted" entry, he noted, while the provisions at issue do not, a distinction he said Congress made "intentionally and purposefully." He also invoked the presumption against extraterritoriality, reasoning that the respondents' interpretation would give the statute reach over conduct occurring outside U.S. territory.

The majority rejected the argument that metering creates a perverse incentive to cross illegally, noting that illegal entry carries criminal liability and other adverse consequences, and that metering "merely delays" entry rather than permanently barring it.

In a concurrence, Justice Thomas wrote separately to question whether the lower court's relief improperly circumvented statutory limits on class-wide injunctions and infringed on the President's authority to exclude noncitizens.

A Sharp Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented forcefully, accusing the majority of being "driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: 'in.'"

Sotomayor argued that words must be read in context and that the majority's reading rendered the "arrives in" clause entirely superfluous, since anyone who has stepped onto U.S. soil is already "physically present." She offered her own examples: a train conductor announcing arrival in Penn Station while still half a mile away, or telling someone to call upon arriving in Washington, D.C., after landing across the river in Virginia.

The dissent also detailed what it called the human toll of metering, citing reports that CBP turned away asylum seekers even when facilities had capacity, redirected them to distant and dangerous crossing points, and contributed to makeshift border camps where migrants faced violence. Some, the dissent noted, drowned attempting to cross the Rio Grande after giving up on waiting.

Sotomayor warned that the ruling vests "limitless discretion" in the executive branch to abandon its inspection duties simply by keeping migrants "one inch away from U.S. soil." Justice Jackson filed a separate dissent.

What It Means

The decision clears the way for the government to resume metering when it deems border conditions warrant it. The government had told the Court that metering remains an "important tool" it would likely use again. The case now returns to the lower courts for further proceedings.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-5_86qd.pdf