On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that immigrants waiting on the Mexican side of the southern border do not have a legal right to asylum processing or inspection at U.S. ports of entry until they physically cross into the country.
The 6-3 decision overturns a previous lower court ruling that had deemed the federal government’s practice of “metering” migrants—limiting daily entries—unlawful.
The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, challenged a policy begun in 2016 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to manage large influxes of migrants by restricting the number processed each day at official land crossings. Under this system, border officials prevented individuals from entering until space became available, leaving many stranded in Mexico.
In 2017, the advocacy group Al Otro Lado and several asylum seekers sued, claiming the policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which they argued guarantees the right to seek asylum upon arrival at a port of entry.
Delivering the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that the phrase “arrives in the United States” should be understood in its common, literal sense. “In everyday language,” he wrote, “someone does not ‘arrive in’ a place—whether a house, city, or nation—without actually entering it.” According to Alito, an individual standing in Mexico has not “arrived” in the U.S., even if attempting to cross.
Only upon crossing the border does that status apply.
The majority, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, also observed that while other parts of immigration law specifically reference attempted entry, the sections governing asylum and inspection do not. They concluded that Congress did not intend these provisions to extend beyond U.S. territory.
Justice Thomas added a concurring opinion expressing concern about lower courts issuing broad injunctions that interfere with immigration enforcement. He warned that requiring the executive branch to admit foreign nationals could undermine the president’s constitutional authority to control who enters the country.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor—joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson—criticized the majority for focusing narrowly on wording while disregarding the intent behind the asylum system, which was shaped by post–World War II international obligations.
She argued the ruling allows the executive branch to bypass congressionally mandated procedures by simply preventing people from stepping onto U.S. soil. “The Court today permits the Executive to shut the door on those fleeing persecution,” she wrote, “ignoring the detailed legal framework Congress established.”
Sotomayor pointed to federal regulations from 1996 that defined an “arriving alien” as someone “coming or attempting to come into the United States at a port-of-entry,” a definition not dependent on physical entry.
Justice Jackson filed a separate dissent, noting that the formal metering policy had already been terminated in November 2021 after a district court struck it down. She contended the Supreme Court should not have taken up the case, as there was no active policy to review.
“The Court is now issuing an advisory opinion on a practice that has been inactive for nearly five years,” she wrote, “deciding important legal questions in the abstract.”
Although the policy is no longer in effect, the government maintained the case was not moot, arguing it needed the legal ability to reinstate metering if future migration surges strain border resources.
The Supreme Court’s decision now returns the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further action consistent with the ruling.
–
Original Article: Just across the line: Supreme Court rules immigrants in Mexico haven’t legally ‘arrived’ in the US