The Supreme Court ruled on June 25, 2026, in a 6-3 decision that the U.S. government can legally turn away asylum seekers at ports of entry without violating federal law, upholding a practice known as "metering." The case, Mullin v.
Al Otro Lado, centered on whether asylum seekers waiting at the U.S.-Mexico border have the legal right to present themselves for inspection before being turned back. The decision reversed a 2024 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that had found the metering policy unlawful. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion held that asylum seekers do not legally "arrive in the United States" until they physically cross the border—meaning officers can legally block them from doing so..
Table of Contents
- What is metering and who does it affect?
- How did the case reach the Supreme Court?
- What changed about asylum policy?
- What does this ruling mean in practice?
- Frequently Asked Questions
What is metering and who does it affect?
Metering is a policy that limits how many asylum seekers can present themselves for inspection at U.S. ports of entry each day. The policy originated in 2016 under the Obama administration and was formalized into a border-wide practice by the Trump administration in 2018. Under metering, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers station themselves at the physical boundary between the United States and Mexico to prevent asylum seekers from setting foot on U.S. soil and initiating the asylum application process.
The people affected are asylum seekers—anyone fleeing persecution who arrives at the U.S.-Mexico border seeking protection. Under the metering policy, they can be turned back to Mexico or wherever they came from without the opportunity to file a formal asylum claim or be heard by an immigration judge.
How did the case reach the Supreme Court?
The case began when Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights organization, challenged the metering policy as unlawful. The Ninth Circuit court of Appeals agreed, ruling in 2024 that the policy violated federal law. The Supreme Court reversed that decision in a 6-3 ruling, upholding the government's authority to turn away asylum seekers. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Three justices dissented. Justice Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, stating that the ruling "blesses the Executive Branch's decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution, despite the detailed inspection and asylum system that Congress enacted and commands.".
What changed about asylum policy?
The Biden-Harris administration had rescinded the metering policy in November 2021, effectively ending the practice. However, the Supreme Court's ruling does not reinstate metering—it upholds the government's legal authority to use it. This means any future administration can choose to reinstate the policy without legal obstacle, or the current administration could resume the practice.
The ruling hinges on a single word in the Immigration and Nationality Act: when does an asylum seeker "arrive in the United States"? The majority held that arrival occurs only after physically entering U.S. territory, not while standing at the border in Mexico. This narrow interpretation of one statutory term now determines whether asylum seekers have the right to present themselves for inspection.
What does this ruling mean in practice?
The practical effect is that the government can now legally limit how many asylum seekers can apply each day at any port of entry. Before the Supreme Court's reversal, the Ninth Circuit had blocked this practice; now it is fully legal. This affects asylum seekers arriving at the border, who will face a system where daily application limits set by CBP officers are legally defensible.
For asylum seekers who are turned back, the Supreme Court has essentially closed the federal law route to challenge their rejection. The ruling confirms that the government may turn away asylum seekers at the border without violating federal immigration law—the legal challenge that reached the Supreme Court has now been answered in the government's favor.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this ruling immediately restart metering?
No. The ruling upholds the government's legal authority to use metering but does not automatically reinstate it. That would require a policy decision by the current administration.
Can someone challenge a turnback in another way?
The Supreme Court has closed the federal statutory law challenge in this ruling. Asylum seekers might pursue other narrower legal avenues, but federal immigration law no longer bars the government from using metering.
What about asylum seekers already in the U.S. who have filed claims?
This ruling affects people turned back at the border before they enter. Asylum seekers who have already crossed and filed claims can still pursue their cases in immigration court.