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. The justices, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a lower court order blocking the practice that limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day under the Obama administration and during President Donald Trump’s first term. The ruling in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado reshapes who can demand asylum inspection at a port of entry—and when.
What changed
On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (No. 25-5) that in a 6–3 decision, the Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require border officials to process asylum claims from individuals who remain outside U.S. territory. The central legal question was whether a noncitizen “arrives in the United States” when standing at the border or only after crossing it, and the Court emphasized that the statutory language carries its ordinary meaning, concluding that arrival occurs only upon entry into U.S. territory.
The high court reversed a decision by the Ninth Circuit that held that non citizens who were turned away before they could enter the U.S. had “arrived in” the country for the purpose of applying for asylum. The metering policy ended in 2020 when the government introduced greater restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, and President Joe Biden formally rescinded it in 2021. The Court’s decision removes the legal barrier that had prevented the Trump administration from reinstating it.
Why it matters
Asylum screening at the border is now optional for individuals on the Mexican side. Agents can now tell migrants and refugees who have arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border to wait in Mexico for a later processing time. This means:
- No statutory right to inspection: Federal law does not require immigration officers to inspect someone still standing in Mexico, and it does not give that person the right to apply for asylum from Mexican soil simply because he’s near a port of entry.
- CBP discretion is restored: The administration argues that metering is a critical tool that’s been used by presidents of both parties and should stay available.
- Ninth Circuit precedent is reversed: Practitioners who relied on the 2024 Ninth Circuit ruling that asylum seekers have a right to inspection must now pivot to federal court strategy in other circuits or EOIR appeals.
For practitioners: If you have clients currently waiting at ports of entry or planning to file asylum claims there, be aware that CBP officers may invoke this ruling to defer or decline inspection. The policy is not yet formally reinstated, but the legal foundation now supports it. The policy isn’t in place now, though authorities have imposed other restrictions on asylum seekers.
Way forward
- Monitor CBP policy announcements for formal reinstatement of metering and any accompanying guidance on which ports will apply it.
- Review pending cases involving clients turned away at the border pre-entry. This ruling may affect litigation strategy and appeals in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere.
- Advise asylum-seeking clients that entry into U.S. territory (not mere presence at a port) is now the legal threshold for asylum inspection rights under federal law.
- Track DHS implementation: In court documents, government lawyers had said the Trump administration wanted metering as an available policy option. Expect formal policy guidance soon.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It summarizes a Supreme Court decision and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law is complex and subject to rapid change. Verify all information against the primary source and consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific circumstances.