Mullin. v. Al Otro Lado - Opinion, SCOTUS

June 29, 2026

SCOTUSblog

Holding

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien “arrives in the United States” for purposes of 8 U.S.C. §§1158(a)(1) and 1225(a) only when the alien crosses the border into the United States; the INA neither entitles an alien standing at the border in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him.

Judgment

Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Samuel Alito on Jun 25, 2026. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Jackson also wrote a dissenting opinion.

Opinion Analysis

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the federal government’s policy of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they can reach the U.S.-Mexico border. By a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with the Trump administration in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that the policy, which was adopted a decade ago as a response to a surge in the number of Haitian immigrants seeking asylum outside San Diego, does not violate a federal law that permits noncitizens to apply for asylum when they “arrive[] in the United States.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito called the question before the court a “straightforward” one. “In ordinary speech,” he wrote, “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. The context in which the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary meaning.’”

Case Preview

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in a challenge to the government’s policy of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they can reach the U.S. border with Mexico. The policy at the center of Noem v. Al Otro Lado is no longer in place, but the Trump administration calls it a “critical tool for addressing” surges in immigrants at the border. The immigrant rights group and asylum seekers who are challenging the policy counter that it is contrary to federal immigration law and, when it was in effect, “created a humanitarian crisis in Mexico.”

Asylum is a form of legal protection for people who flee their own countries because they fear persecution or harm there. Under U.S. law, noncitizens can apply for asylum when they are “physically present in the United States” or when they “arrive[] in the United States.” Noncitizens who arrive at a port of entry, an officially designated site to enter the country, such as an airport or a land crossing – and indicate that they want to seek asylum – are inspected and processed. That is, they are screened by border officials and then channeled into the asylum system, which may include either an interview with an asylum officer or proceedings in immigration court.

Nearly a decade ago, in response to a surge in the number of Haitian immigrants seeking asylum in San Ysidro, a port of entry outside San Diego, the Department of Homeland Security initiated a policy known as “metering.” Officials from the Customs and Border Patrol agency would stand along the U.S.-Mexico border and turn back noncitizens without valid travel documents, including asylum seekers, before they could enter the United States. In 2017, the government extended that policy to all ports of entry across the U.S. border with Mexico, and it was formalized in a memorandum in 2018.