Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that noncitizens standing in Mexico are not considered to have arrived in the U.S. and are not entitled to asylum processing.
The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling, deciding that 'arriving in the United States' requires physically crossing the border.
Plain-English summary generated by AI from the Court's published opinion on June 25, 2026. Always read the official opinion for the controlling text.
Key Takeaways
- 01A person is only considered to have 'arrived in' the U.S. once they physically cross the border.
- 02The government is not legally required to inspect or process asylum seekers who are still on the Mexican side of the boundary.
- 03Federal 'metering' policies used to manage border surges are consistent with current immigration statutes.
Inside the Court
6–3
Decision
- Opinion by
- Justice Alito
- Majority
- AlitoRobertsThomasGorsuchKavanaughBarrett
- Dissent
- SotomayorKaganJackson
Why It Matters
This decision allows the government to use 'metering' policies at the border to manage surges by limiting how many people may enter to apply for asylum.
Who Is Affected?
Asylum seekers
They cannot claim a legal right to an asylum interview until they have successfully crossed onto U.S. soil.
Department of Homeland Security
Officials may lawfully use 'metering' to delay the entry of people when ports are at full capacity.
What Happened?
Beginning in 2016, a surge of people at the U.S. southern border led officials to adopt a 'metering' policy that limited daily inspections. Under this policy, officials stood at the borderline and prevented people from crossing until the port had enough space and staff to process them. Individual asylum seekers and the group Al Otro Lado sued, arguing that federal law requires officials to inspect anyone who reaches the border. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, but the government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Question
Does a person 'arrive in the United States' when they reach the border while still standing in Mexico, or only when they actually cross the border line?
Why the Court Ruled This Way
In a 6–3 decision written by Justice Alito, the Court held that the phrase 'arrives in' carries its ordinary meaning, which requires actually entering a geographic location. The Court reasoned that an alien is not an 'applicant for admission' under 8 U.S.C. §1225(a)(1) until they cross into U.S. territory, as the law does not mention 'attempted entry' in these specific provisions. Justice Alito noted that while other parts of the law refer to people 'near' or 'at' a border, the sections regarding asylum specifically use 'in,' signaling a requirement for physical presence within the country's limits. Additionally, the Court applied the presumption against extraterritoriality, finding that without clear instructions from Congress, U.S. laws do not typically apply to people outside the country's borders.
Arguments in Favor
The law's use of 'arrives in' naturally implies entering a territory rather than just standing outside of it. Applying the law to people still in Mexico would create an 'extraterritorial' reach that Congress did not clearly authorize.
Arguments Against
The ruling makes the phrase 'arrives in' redundant because the law already covers anyone 'physically present' in the U.S. This interpretation could allow the government to indefinitely block people from ever accessing the asylum process by preventing them from physically crossing the line.
Timeline
2016
CBP began 'metering' at the border.
Officials adopted the policy to manage surges that exceeded processing capacity at ports of entry.
2017
Al Otro Lado filed a class action lawsuit.
The suit challenged the legality of preventing people from applying for asylum while they waited in Mexico.
June 25, 2026
The Supreme Court issued its decision.
The Court ruled that people standing in Mexico have not yet arrived 'in' the United States.
What This Means for Everyday Americans
For most Americans, this ruling clarifies how the border is managed during times of high volume. It means that the government can legally require people to wait in Mexico before they are allowed to start the formal asylum process. From a legal standpoint, the decision emphasizes that rights granted by U.S. immigration laws generally only kick in once a person is physically inside the country's borders. This helps the government maintain order at ports of entry, but it also means those seeking safety may face long waits in other countries without the immediate protections of U.S. law.
What Happens Next?
The case is remanded to lower courts to resolve any remaining legal issues consistent with the Supreme Court's definition of 'arrival.' The government is now legally cleared to resume or maintain metering policies within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction.
Explain It Like I'm 12
Imagine there is a popular club with a long line. The rules say that once you 'arrive in the club,' the manager must check your ID. This case asked if you have 'arrived in the club' while you are still standing on the sidewalk waiting to get through the door. The Supreme Court said no—you haven't arrived 'in' the club until you actually step inside. Because people waiting at the border haven't stepped inside the U.S. yet, the government doesn't have to start their legal paperwork right away. This allows the border patrol to tell people to wait in Mexico until there is enough room to help them.
Broader Context
The decision reinforces the 'presumption against extraterritoriality,' a legal rule that U.S. laws generally only apply within U.S. territory unless Congress explicitly states otherwise. It also clarifies that the executive branch has broad authority to manage the physical flow of people at the border for safety and capacity reasons.
Key Players
Al Otro Lado
An immigration-advocacy organization that served as the primary plaintiff in the class action lawsuit.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
The federal agency responsible for inspecting travelers and enforcing border security.