The justices held in a 6-3 decision that asylum-seekers must be on U.S. soil — not just arriving at a U.S. port of entry — for the government's processing obligations under the Immigration and Nationality Act to kick in. The decision reverses a split Ninth Circuit panel's 2024 decision that the federal government cannot turn away noncitizens without valid travel documents at the southern border when it deems U.S. ports of entry to be at capacity — a defunct practice known as "metering."
The case centered on when someone arrives in the United States. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the INA is clear they must be on U.S. soil.
"In ordinary speech, 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 reading. So does the presumption against extraterritoriality," Justice Alito said.
Legal services and humanitarian aid provider Al Otro Lado brought the underlying suit in 2017 in an effort to block the first Trump administration from implementing the metering policy. Introduced in 2016 during the Obama administration, the policy was formalized during the first Trump administration, but the Biden administration rescinded it in November 2021, while litigation in the lower courts was ongoing.
Al Otro Lado said the policy forced asylum-seekers to wait in dangerous border towns in Mexico or to risk their lives entering the U.S. between designated ports of entry.
During oral arguments in March, Al Otro Lado told the justices that asylum rights have long been treated as triggered the moment a migrant reaches the physical entrance, or threshold, of a port of entry.
But Justice Alito said that can't be the case in light of "everyday examples."
"A running back does not arrive in the end zone when he reaches the 1-yard line. A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door," Justice Alito said. "An army does not arrive in a city by encamping outside its walls."
The government had argued that it's not required to inspect asylum-seekers who are not physically present on U.S. soil, and therefore haven't arrived for the purposes of triggering the INA's inspection and asylum provisions.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the district court may have flouted a prohibition on classwide injunctive relief that bars courts from ordering the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to change how it administers certain parts of the INA.
"The relief that the district court provided may well have unconstitutionally infringed on the president's inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country," Justice Thomas said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the majority's decision "illogical," saying it ignored legislative history and context, along with the executive branch's long-standing practice of allowing any noncitizen arriving at the border and seeking admission to apply for asylum and be inspected, "regardless of whether her foot has crossed the threshold."
The phrase "arrives in," Justice Sotomayor said, necessarily includes "the process of arriving, regardless of where their feet are."
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the dissent.
Justice Jackson penned a separate dissent saying the court shouldn't have taken the case at all because it's likely moot. The metering policy hasn't been in effect since 2021, and the government said during oral arguments that it has no immediate plans to reinstate it.
Melissa Crow of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, representing Al Otro Lado, said the justices' ruling "should sound the alarm."
"The majority opinion ... suggests the president may unilaterally override decades of established law and trample on people's legal rights if doing so suits his political agenda. The turnback policy did not merely delay entry for people seeking safety. For far too many asylum-seekers, the policy denied entry entirely," Crow said. "In some cases, that became a death sentence."
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called the majority decision "a tremendous win."
"President Trump remains committed to lawfully restoring integrity to our immigration system, which includes tackling the egregious abuses to our asylum system that the prior administration encouraged," Jackson said.
The federal government is represented by Vivek Suri of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The respondents are represented by Kelsi Brown Corkran, Jonathan L. Backer and Samuel P. Siegel of the Georgetown University Law Center's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Melissa Crow of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and Rebecca Cassler and Suchita Mathur of the American Immigration Council.
The case is Mullin et al. v. Al Otro Lado et al., case number 25-5, before the U.S. Supreme Court.
--Editing by Daniel King.
Update: This article has been updated with additional information and comments.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
