Supreme Court Upholds "Metering" Policy, Allowing Asylum Seeker Turnbacks at Border
On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in *Mullin v. Al Otro Lado* that the government can turn away asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border without processing claims. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that asylum seekers only "arrive in the United States" after physically entering the country, not while waiting in Mexico. The ruling overturns a 9th Circuit decision and allows the Trump administration to reinstate the "metering" policy, which limits daily asylum claim processing. Dissenting justices warned the decision could push refugees back into danger and encourage illegal crossings. Human rights groups called the ruling potentially catastrophic.
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
Supreme Court Slams the Door on Asylum Seekers at the Border
On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that the U.S. government can turn away asylum seekers who arrive at the border without processing their claims. The conservative majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, held that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an asylum seeker only 'arrives in the United States' when they physically enter the country, not when they are stopped on the Mexican side. The decision reversed a 9th Circuit ruling that the law covered those encountering officials at the border regardless of which side they stood on. The case stemmed from a 2016 surge in asylum seekers and the U.S. government's subsequent 'metering' policy limiting processing. Immigrant rights group Al Otro Lado and 13 asylum seekers had sued, arguing the INA requires processing at ports of entry. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by liberal justices, argued the majority's interpretation ignored legislative intent and could allow the government to evade its obligations. The Trump administration, which argued for the power to implement turnback policies, supported the ruling. Civil and human rights groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, warned the decision could be catastrophic for vulnerable asylum seekers.
Reason.comSupreme Court Rules U.S. Can Turn Away Asylum Seekers Without Processing Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 conservative majority ruling on June 25, 2026, determined that the U.S. government may turn away asylum seekers who arrive at the border without processing their claims. The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, centered on whether asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border 'arrive in the United States' under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, argued that arrival occurs only upon physical entry, using analogies like a football player tackled before the end zone. The ruling reverses a 9th Circuit decision that had found the law covers those at the border regardless of which side they stand. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by liberal justices, argued the majority ignored legislative intent, warning that the decision gives the government free rein to avoid statutory obligations. The case originated from a 2016 surge in asylum seekers and the 'metering' policy that limited daily processing. The Trump administration had not restarted the turnback policy but argued for the power to do so. Human rights groups and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had filed amicus briefs opposing the ruling, calling it potentially catastrophic for vulnerable asylum seekers.
Reason.comSupreme Court Rules Government Can Turn Away Asylum Seekers at Border Without Processing Claims
In a 6-3 ruling on June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court decided in *Mullin v. Al Otro Lado* that the U.S. government can turn away asylum seekers at the border without processing their claims. The majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, held that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien only 'arrives in the United States' when they physically enter the country, not when they are on the Mexican side. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing the decision ignores legislative intent and allows the government to evade its statutory obligations. The case stemmed from a 2016 'metering' policy during the surge in asylum seekers. The Biden administration rescinded the policy, but the Trump administration argued for the power to reinstate it. Civil and human rights groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, warned the decision could cause catastrophic harm to vulnerable asylum seekers.
Reason.comSupreme Court allows policy to curtail asylum claims
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 25, 2026, allowing the Trump administration to restart an Obama-era 'metering' policy that blocks migrants from claiming asylum by preventing them from reaching the U.S. border while they are still in Mexico. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote the majority opinion, stating that a person 'arrives in' the U.S. only when they physically enter the country. The decision overturns a 9th Circuit ruling against the policy. In a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued the ruling disregards congressional intent and could return refugees to persecution or encourage dangerous border crossings. The case is Markwayne Mullin, secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Al Otro Lado.
Roll CallSupreme Court allows policy to curtail asylum claims
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 25, 2026, that the Trump administration could restart an Obama-era policy known as 'metering,' which prevents immigrants from making asylum claims by halting them from reaching the U.S.-Mexico border. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, stating that the phrase 'arrives in' the United States only applies after a migrant physically enters the country, not while still in Mexico. The ruling overturns a 9th Circuit decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, arguing Congress intended the law to cover those in the process of arriving and warned the policy would lead to refugees being turned back to persecution and encourage dangerous illegal crossings. The case was Markwayne Mullin, secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Al Otro Lado. The policy was originally adopted under Obama, continued by Trump amid legal challenges, and ended under Biden.
Roll Call