Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, Docket No. 25-5

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

The Supreme Court just made it much harder for asylum seekers to get their cases heard. The Court ruled 6 to 3 that people waiting at the U.S. border don't have the right to request asylum unless they've already physically crossed into the country. That means border officers can turn people away at the gate without ever processing their claims, even if they're fleeing violence or persecution. The decision changes decades of immigration practice.

The Policy That Started It All

U.S. Customs and Border Protection used what it called "metering." Officers stationed at the border would limit how many people could enter for processing each day, leaving thousands stranded in Mexico for months at a time. Some waited in dangerous conditions. Some were raped, beaten, or drowned while waiting. An immigration advocacy group called Al Otro Lado sued on behalf of asylum seekers, arguing the government was breaking the law by refusing to even listen to their cases.

The lower courts agreed. But the Supreme Court reversed that decision, siding with the government.

What the Law Actually Says

The wording of the law mattered a lot in the decision. Federal immigration law says people can apply for asylum if they are "physically present in the United States" or if they "arrive in the United States." Those are two separate conditions connected by the word "or."

The asylum seekers argued this language matters. If "arrive in" just means the same thing as "physically present," then why mention it twice? They said "arrive in" must cover people who show up at the border but haven't been allowed to cross yet. The government disagreed, saying "arrive in" simply means you have to actually enter the country.

How the Court Decided

Justice Alito, writing for the majority, sided with the government. He used everyday examples to explain his thinking. A football player tackled at the one-yard line hasn't arrived in the end zone. A letter in the mail carrier's hand hasn't arrived in your mailbox. Same logic applies at the border.

The majority also noted that Congress used different language in different parts of the immigration law when it wanted to distinguish between people who actually enter versus those who just try to. That suggested Congress knew the difference and chose its words carefully.

The Court acknowledged the asylum seekers had a point about the redundancy problem. But it said the overlap made sense because Congress added the "arrive in" language in 1996 as part of a broader overhaul, and the two provisions were simply meant to work together.

What the Dissenters Said

The three dissenting justices, led by Justice Sotomayor, pushed back hard. They pointed out that Congress uses "arrives in" and "arrives at" interchangeably elsewhere in the same law. If the majority's reading were correct, those other parts wouldn't make sense.

More importantly, they documented the practical effects of metering. Asylum seekers turned away at the border faced rape, violence, and death while waiting in Mexico. Government investigators found the policy was being used even when processing facilities were only 20 percent full. Justice Jackson added the metering policy had already been canceled nearly five years before the Court decided this case, so the justices were essentially answering a question that no longer mattered in practice.

Presidential Power in Immigration

This decision gives the government broad power to turn people away at the border without hearing their asylum claims. It also signals that at least some justices may be willing to expand presidential power at the border even further. Justice Thomas wrote separately to suggest the President might have inherent constitutional authority to exclude noncitizens that Congress cannot override. That's not the law today, but it's a warning sign about where the Court might be heading.

For asylum seekers, presenting yourself at a port of entry no longer guarantees you'll get your day in court. The government can simply keep you on the other side of the line.