The Supreme Court backed the Trump administration’s bid to strengthen its ability to regulate the entry of asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border, with major implications for how asylum claims are processed at ports of entry. Divided 6-3, the court ruled that someone who seeks to enter America at the southern border cannot claim asylum if they present themselves to officials while still standing on Mexican soil because they are not technically in the United States.
What changed
The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border, and that doing so does not violate federal immigration law. The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, centered on the interpretation of federal law stating that asylum may be sought by those “physically present” or who “arrive in” the United States.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court’s conservative majority: “We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arrive in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in the country.” An alien “arrives in the United States” only when he crosses the border.
The ruling revives the “metering” policy, which limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day, first under the Obama administration and then expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term. The policy ended in 2020 when the government introduced greater restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, and President Joe Biden formally rescinded it in 2021. The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for the Trump administration to potentially revive an immigration policy once used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Why it matters
For immigration practitioners, this ruling fundamentally reshapes asylum law at the border. The Trump administration now has backing from the federal government’s authority to turn away asylum seekers when officials deem U.S.-Mexico border crossings too overburdened to handle additional claims, and the court, in a 6-3 ruling powered by its conservative justices, overturned a lower court’s finding that the policy violated federal law.
The practical consequence is significant: Officials can once again prevent some people from applying for asylum by ensuring they cannot cross the border to present themselves to immigration officers. This is distinct from other border restrictions; it specifically addresses inspection-based denial at ports of entry.
The dissenting justices flagged humanitarian concerns. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said her colleagues were allowing the Executive Branch to circumvent mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil, even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry.
For practitioners advising clients: the ruling clarifies that merely arriving at a port of entry—without crossing the physical boundary—does not trigger asylum eligibility under current law. This affects litigation strategy, client counseling, and arguments about what “arrival” means in immigration statutes.
Way forward
-
Update your client advisory materials. Clarify that under Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the legal test for asylum eligibility at the border now turns on physical crossing, not proximity to a port of entry. Revise any guidance that treated port-of-entry arrival as equivalent to statutory arrival.
-
Monitor DHS policy guidance. The Trump administration has indicated it may revive metering. Watch for official memos, policy alerts, or operational directives from CBP and USCIS on how the agency will apply this ruling in practice.
-
Evaluate alternative avenues. For clients in Mexico or approaching the border, explore whether other pathways (credible fear interviews for those who do cross, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture claims) remain viable after metering resumes.
-
Track federal litigation. Expect challenges to any metering reinstatement and monitor lower-court injunctions or district-court orders that may limit the ruling’s scope in particular regions or factual scenarios.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes by articles.folaform.com, which is operated by a software company, not a law firm. This is not legal advice. The information here is current as of the publication date but may not reflect future changes to policy or law. Please consult with a licensed immigration attorney to discuss your specific situation and verify all information against the primary source linked above and applicable regulations, which may change without notice.