The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Wednesday that migrants standing in Mexico do not "arrive in the United States" simply by approaching a U.S. port of entry—a decision that revives the Trump administration's ability to turn away asylum seekers before they physically cross the border.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, rejected the argument that presenting oneself to border agents at a port of entry triggers statutory asylum protections.

The "Metering" Policy Returns

The ruling effectively greenlights "metering"—a policy that allows border officials to limit how many migrants can apply for asylum each day. First adopted during the Obama administration in response to a surge in Haitian asylum seekers outside San Diego, metering was rescinded by President Biden in 2021. The Trump administration has sought to revive it as a critical tool for managing border flows.

Under metering, Customs and Border Protection agents can tell asylum seekers waiting at ports of entry to come back later—or to cross elsewhere—rather than immediately processing their claims. Critics warn the policy effectively forces desperate migrants to attempt dangerous illegal crossings or wait indefinitely in Mexican border cities plagued by cartel violence.

A Rare Oral Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a rare oral dissent from the bench, reading portions of her 35-page opinion—nearly twice the length of Alito's majority ruling. She warned bluntly that the decision "will result in more people dying."

Sotomayor called the ruling "a stark abandonment of people fleeing persecution" and invoked the historical origins of American asylum law.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the dissent.

Case History and Legal Background

The case originated in 2017 when Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights organization, filed suit in the Southern District of California alongside a class of asylum seekers challenging the legality of metering. A district court ruled against the policy in 2021, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in a 2-1 ruling in 2024, finding that "arrives in the United States" should include migrants encountering border officials on either side of the border.

The Supreme Court's reversal of the Ninth Circuit hands the executive branch significant discretion over asylum processing at ports of entry. Combined with the same day's ruling on Temporary Protected Status in Mullin v. Doe, the decisions represent a major expansion of presidential authority over immigration policy.

Reactions and Implications

Immigration attorneys Geoff Pipoly and Andy Tauber, who represented asylum seekers in the case, condemned the outcome: "Simply put, the Supreme Court's ruling will directly result in thousands of innocent people dying violent, needless deaths."

The Trump administration hailed the decision as a major victory, arguing metering is "a critical tool" used by presidents of both parties to address border surges. The policy is not currently in effect but can now be reimplemented, potentially affecting thousands of asylum seekers waiting in Mexican border towns.