On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (No. 25-5) that asylum seekers must physically enter the United States before gaining the right to apply for asylum.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require border officials to process asylum claims from individuals who remain outside U.S. territory.
Key Holding: Physical Entry Required
The central legal question was whether a noncitizen “arrives in the United States” when standing at the border or only after crossing it.
The Court held:
- An individual does not “arrive in the United States” while still in Mexico
- Legal rights to inspection and asylum attach only after crossing the border
- Immigration officials are not required to inspect or process claims until that point
The Court emphasized that the statutory language carries its ordinary meaning, concluding that arrival occurs only upon entry into U.S. territory.
Background: The “Metering” Policy
The case stems from the government’s use of “metering,” a practice implemented beginning in 2016 to manage surges at ports of entry.
Under metering:
- Border officials limit the number of individuals allowed to enter for processing each day
- Migrants may be turned away before physically entering U.S. territory
- Asylum processing is effectively delayed until entry is permitted
Lower courts had found the practice unlawful, ruling that asylum seekers at the border were entitled to inspection and the opportunity to apply.
The Supreme Court reversed those rulings, clearing the way for the policy’s future use.
Court’s Reasoning
1. Statutory Interpretation
The majority focused on the phrase“arrives in the United States”, holding:
- “Arrival” requires physical presence inside U.S. borders
- Congress intentionally excluded language covering mere attempted entry
- Prior statutory amendments support a narrower interpretation
2. No Extraterritorial Application
The Court rejected arguments that asylum rights extend beyond U.S. territory:
- The INA does not clearly apply outside the United States
- Extending asylum rights to individuals in Mexico would give the law extraterritorial reach, which courts avoid absent clear congressional intent
3. Metering as a Permissible Tool
The Court also indicated that:
- Metering does not permanently bar asylum claims
- It merely delays entry until processing capacity allows
- Individuals may still apply for asylum once admitted into the U.S.
Dissenting Opinion
The dissenting justices sharply criticized the decision, arguing that:
- The ruling allows the government to circumvent statutory asylum procedures
- It may incentivize unauthorized border crossings
- It risks exposing asylum seekers to danger while waiting outside the U.S.
They also emphasized that U.S. law has historically required inspection of those arriving at ports of entry, not only those who have already crossed.
Broader Policy Context
This ruling aligns with a series of recent decisions reinforcing:
- Executive authority in immigration enforcement
- Narrow interpretations of statutory protections
- Reduced judicial oversight in certain immigration contexts
It also reflects ongoing efforts to restrict access to asylum as part of broader immigration policy.
Erickson Insights and Analysis
Erickson Immigration Group will continue monitoring developments and sharing updates as more news is available. Please contact your employer or EIG attorney if you have questions about anything we’re reporting above or if you have case-specific questions.