What the Mullin v. Al Otro Lado Ruling Means for Asylum Seekers
If you or someone you know has been trying to seek asylum at the United States border, a recent Supreme Court ruling may affect how and whether you can access the asylum process.
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5, that a person who approaches an official port of entry on the Mexican side of the border has not legally “arrived in the United States.” Under the Court’s reading of federal immigration law, that person has no statutory right to be inspected by an immigration officer or to apply for asylum. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Justice Jackson also wrote a separate dissent.
If you have questions about how this ruling affects your situation, call Brooks Law Firm at (617) 245-8090 to schedule a free consultation.
The Government Used “Metering” to Limit Border Access, and the Court Said That Was Legal
The case began with a government practice known as “metering.” Starting in 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the federal agency that manages U.S. border crossings, began limiting how many people could approach ports of entry each day to request protection. Officers stood at the border and told people seeking asylum to wait in Mexico and come back later.
The central legal question was whether those people, standing at an official crossing on the Mexican side, sometimes after being directed there by U.S. officers, had legally “arrived in the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). If they had arrived, federal law required officers to inspect them and allowed them to apply for asylum.
The government rescinded the metering policy in November 2021, but the lawsuit continued. The Supreme Court found the case was not moot because the government told the Court it would likely resume metering if conditions at the border called for it.
The Court Ruled That Standing at the Border Is Not the Same as Arriving
The majority reversed the Ninth Circuit’s 2025 amended decision, which had held that people presenting themselves at a port of entry were entitled to be processed. Justice Alito wrote that a person “arrives in the United States” only when they physically cross the border into U.S. territory. Standing on Mexican soil, even at an official crossing, even after being told to wait there by U.S. officers, does not meet that standard.
Because the Court read the word “arrives” to require physical entry, the government has no obligation under the INA to inspect individuals who have not yet crossed into the United States or to allow them to apply for asylum.
Justice Thomas wrote separately to agree with the result. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent argued that reading the asylum and inspection statutes together shows Congress intended to protect people presenting themselves at the border, not just those who had already crossed. Justice Jackson wrote separately to argue the case should not have been decided at all because the metering policy had been rescinded years earlier.
The Ruling Affects People Outside the U.S., Not Those Already Here
This ruling matters most for people who are currently outside the United States and trying to seek protection at a border crossing. Under this decision, the government may legally turn them away without processing their claims.
The ruling does not affect asylum cases that are already pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the federal agency that processes immigration applications, or cases already before an immigration court. It does not change the rights of people who are physically inside the United States, regardless of how they entered.
People who cross the border into U.S. territory, whether at or between official ports of entry, are still subject to inspection and may still be placed into proceedings where they can apply for asylum or other forms of protection. However, entering between official ports of entry without authorization can lead to expedited removal, which is a fast-track deportation process with very limited legal review. It can also trigger unlawful presence bars that block future immigration applications for three or ten years. These are not risks to take without legal guidance.
As of today, the metering policy has not been reinstated. The government told the Supreme Court it may resume the practice if border conditions call for it, but no formal reinstatement has been announced. This could change without warning.
Talk to an Attorney Before Making Any Decision About the Border
If you have family members outside the United States who are trying to reach safety, or if you are already in an asylum case, this ruling is one more reason to understand your specific options before making any decisions. The legal landscape at the border is shifting, and what is available to you depends on the facts of your situation.
An immigration attorney can review your circumstances and help you understand what paths remain open. Do not make decisions about travel, border crossings, or filings based on general information alone.
Reach out to Brooks Law Firm today to schedule a free consultation, and we will give you an honest look at where your case stands and what may be available to you. Call (617) 245-8090.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this ruling affect my asylum case if I am already inside the United States?
No. The ruling addresses only whether someone standing on the Mexican side of the border has legally “arrived.” If you are already in the United States with a pending asylum application, your case is not affected by this decision.
Can I still apply for asylum if I cross the border into the United States?
A person who physically crosses the border into U.S. territory may still be inspected and may apply for asylum or other protection. However, entering between official ports of entry without authorization can result in expedited removal or trigger unlawful presence bars that block future immigration applications. Every situation is different, and speaking with an immigration attorney before making any decision is important.
Has the metering policy been brought back?
Not as of August 14, 2026. The government rescinded the policy in November 2021, and the Supreme Court’s ruling does not order it reinstated. However, the ruling removes the legal barrier that previously prevented it, and the government has said it may resume the practice. This could change without much warning.
Does this ruling apply only to the southern border?
The Court interpreted the statutory phrase “arrives in the United States,” which applies to all U.S. borders. However, the metering policy at the center of this case was a southern border practice, and the practical effect at other borders remains to be seen.
Asylum isn’t the only protected status affected by recent rulings — see our coverage of the Supreme Court’s TPS ruling and what it means for Haiti and Syria status holders in Massachusetts.
