On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in *Mullin v. Al Otro Lado* that the federal government may turn away asylum seekers at the U.S. border without inspecting them or allowing them to apply for protection.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, holds that a non-citizen does not legally "arrive in the United States" under immigration law until they physically cross the border, meaning customs officers can refuse to process asylum claims from people stopped on the Mexican side. The ruling reverses a lower court decision and revives a practice called "metering," where Customs and Border Protection officers claim they lack capacity and turn asylum seekers away without hearing their claims. This decision affects how asylum seekers can access the U.S. immigration system and reshapes the legal protections they had relied on since 1980, when Congress first allowed people to apply for asylum during inspection at ports of entry.
Official resources:
- MULLIN v. AL OTRO LADO — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
- 25-5 Opinion — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Table of Contents
- What the Supreme Court decided
- How metering works and what changed
- Who this ruling protects and who it affects
- The majority and dissent disagreed sharply on reality
- What this means for people seeking asylum
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the Supreme Court decided
The Court's majority opinion establishes a narrow but significant rule: the law does not require immigration officers to inspect or interview asylum seekers who have not yet physically entered U.S. territory. Justice Alito wrote that the phrase "arrives in the United States" in the Immigration and Nationality Act means crossing the border itself, not approaching it.
This interpretation allows border officials to refuse entry and turn people back to Mexico before any asylum interview occurs. The Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision from October 2024 that had ruled the metering policy unlawful. At that time, the lower court found CBP had no legal authority to refuse to process asylum seekers simply due to claimed capacity limits. The Supreme Court's decision now permits those capacity claims to stand as justification for turning people away.
How metering works and what changed
"Metering" is a CBP practice where border officers tell asylum seekers they have no space to process their cases and direct them to return to mexico and wait. Rather than physically refusing entry or detaining people, officers use claimed staffing or facility limitations as a reason to provide a number and a future date, which asylum seekers may never reach.
Since the ruling, this policy is now permissible under federal law. Before the Supreme Court decision, courts had found metering violated the law because it prevented asylum seekers from exercising their right to apply for protection. The ruling changes that legal landscape entirely: officers no longer need to justify their refusal on any grounds other than claiming they lack capacity to process claims at that moment. No interview, no hearing, no opportunity to present a case—the person is turned back.
Who this ruling protects and who it affects
The Supreme Court's ruling applies *only* to asylum seekers turned away *before* crossing the border. Those already on U.S. soil retain the right to seek asylum through inspection and the immigration process. Once a person physically enters the country—either legally through a port or any other way—they can still apply for asylum and cannot be denied an inspection and interview solely on capacity grounds.
This distinction matters significantly for anyone fleeing persecution. The ruling does not eliminate asylum rights; it restricts *when* and *where* those rights can be exercised. Asylum seekers who successfully reach U.S. soil retain the protections Congress established in 1980. Those stopped on the Mexican side of a port of entry now have no legal guarantee of a hearing.
The majority and dissent disagreed sharply on reality
Justice Alito's majority emphasized the text of the statute: the law says asylum seekers who have "arrived in the United States" can apply, and arrival means crossing the border. The Court applied this definition narrowly, treating the physical act of border crossing as the turning point for legal rights. The opinion did not address whether this interpretation aligns with the practical conditions asylum seekers face.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued in dissent that the majority issued an opinion based on hypothetical scenarios rather than the documented realities at the border. She contended that asylum seekers waiting in Mexico at a port of entry have few options: they cannot safely remain in Mexico indefinitely, and they cannot cross. A bipartisan group of former high-ranking U.S. government officials condemned the ruling, stating it "rubber-stamps" a policy lower courts had already struck down as unlawful.
What this means for people seeking asylum
If you are an asylum seeker considering approaching a U.S. port of entry, you should know that border officers can now turn you back to Mexico without hearing your case, even if you face persecution. The Supreme Court has ruled this practice legal. Crossing outside of a port of entry does not change this risk—it exposes you to criminal prosecution for illegal entry—but it does change when and how you can ask for asylum protection.
If you are already on U.S. soil—whether you crossed at a port or elsewhere—you retain the right to apply for asylum and to have your claim heard. This ruling does not eliminate asylum, and it does not apply to anyone who has entered U.S. territory. Humanitarian organizations continue to assist asylum seekers, and legal representation can help you understand your options. No law firm, government agency, or settlement administrator affiliated with this site can speak for CBP or adjudicate your case; only immigration courts and immigration officers can.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can asylum seekers still apply for asylum if they reach U.S. soil?
Yes. The ruling applies only to asylum seekers turned back before crossing the border. Anyone already on U.S. territory retains the right to apply for asylum.
What is metering?
Metering is a CBP practice where officers claim lack of capacity and direct asylum seekers to wait in Mexico instead of processing their cases. The Supreme Court ruling now permits this under federal law.
Can border officers refuse asylum claims just for any reason?
No. The ruling permits refusal based on claimed capacity limits at that moment. Once someone crosses into U.S. territory, they cannot be denied an inspection and interview solely on capacity grounds.