The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to potentially revive an asylum policy that limited how many migrants could be processed each day at the U.S.-Mexico border in a 6-to-3 decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, overturning a lower court ruling that had blocked the practice, known as metering. The ruling turns on a statutory interpretation question: whether noncitizens stopped on the Mexico side of a port of entry have “arrived in the United States” under federal immigration law.
What changed
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said an individual “arrives in the United States” only after crossing into the country. Under that reading, the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require immigration officers to inspect a person who remains on the Mexico side of the border, even if the person is seeking asylum at an official port of entry.
Metering allows federal agents to turn away migrants at official border crossings when officials say a port lacks capacity to process more people that day. Migrants who are turned away may be told to wait in Mexico and return later. The policy was used under the Obama administration and expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term as border officials faced rising numbers of asylum seekers.
The Biden administration rescinded it. Metering is not currently in place. DHS has not announced whether it will revive the policy following the Supreme Court’s decision.
Why it matters
For immigration practitioners, this decision clarifies the legal framework under which CBP may operate at the southern border. The challengers had argued that border officials could not avoid asylum duties by physically stopping people before they stepped into the country, while federal attorneys argued that the law did not require officers to process someone who had not crossed into U.S. territory. The Supreme Court endorsed the government’s reading.
Practically, if metering is reinstated, asylum applicants will face a fundamentally different intake scenario at ports of entry. Advocacy groups argued that metering forced thousands of migrants to wait for days, weeks or months in Mexico, often in unsafe makeshift camps near border crossings. You should now counsel clients arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border that CBP may legally turn them away at the threshold, even at official ports of entry, if CBP deems the port full—and that this is not a final denial of asylum but potentially only a delay.
The dissent argued that the majority’s reading weakens protections Congress created for people who seek refuge at the border and gives officials a way to prevent asylum seekers from reaching the process at all. This dissenting view reflects longstanding immigrant-rights arguments about the policy’s humanitarian effect; however, it does not bind adjudicators.
Way forward
-
Review current DHS guidance. DHS has not announced whether it will revive the policy following the Supreme Court’s decision. Monitor DHS/CBP press releases and internal directives (Chief Counsel opinions, field guidance) for signals that metering will be reinstated.
-
Revise client intake counseling. If you represent asylum seekers planning to apply at a U.S. port of entry on the southern border, explain that they may be turned away at the physical threshold if CBP invokes metering, and that this action is now legally permissible. Plan for multi-week or multi-month client delays in Mexico.
-
Preserve appellate arguments. Although metering is now legally permissible under the INA’s statutory language, consider whether future challenges on other grounds—international law, treaty obligations, Fifth Amendment due process, or APA procedural defects—remain viable. The Court’s opinion is narrow and focused on statutory interpretation.
-
Monitor legislative response. Congress could amend the INA to require inspection and screening of all persons at ports of entry regardless of whether they have crossed into U.S. territory. Track immigration reform proposals for such changes.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Folaform is a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific; you must consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction before relying on any guidance in this article. Court decisions and agency policy can change without notice. Always verify this information against the primary source—the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado and current DHS policy pronouncements—before advising a client.