Supreme Court Narrows Asylum Access For Migrants Turned Back At Border
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday, June 25, 2026, that the United States may turn away asylum-seekers who are stopped short of entering at the southern border.[1]
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado the Court held migrants turned back before entering the United States have not legally "arrive[d] in" the country and therefore may be denied the chance to apply for asylum.[2] Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, saying "a guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door," and that federal law does not require inspection of people standing in Mexico.[1] Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the bench, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, saying the ruling "regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty," an opinion Alito answered aloud by noting both Obama and Trump administrations had used the practice.[1]
Customs and Border Protection began a "metering" practice in 2016 during a surge of Haitian asylum-seekers at the San Ysidro port of entry.[1] The policy expanded under President Trump and was formalized in a 2018 CBP memorandum, then ended in 2020 and was formally rescinded by President Biden in 2021.[1] Advocates sued, a federal judge in California found metering unlawful in 2021, and the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed, a legal path that brought the dispute to the Supreme Court.[1]
Coverage of the ruling has shifted since the decision was issued, with later reporting stressing its practical and political consequences rather than treating it solely as a narrow legal ruling.[1] Fox News and other conservative outlets framed the outcome as a major victory for President Trump and a way to sharply reduce asylum claims at ports of entry.[2]
The mainstream summary does not mention the significant backlog in immigration courts, which as of May 2026, included over 2.3 million immigrants awaiting asylum hearings, contributing to a total backlog of over 3.2 million cases. This backlog highlights the inefficiencies in the asylum process that could be exacerbated by the Supreme Court's ruling, which may further restrict access to asylum for those already facing long delays.[3]
Additionally, while the mainstream coverage frames the ruling as a legal victory for the Trump administration, it downplays the broader implications of the decision amidst a backdrop of declining migrant encounters, which were reported at their lowest levels in over 50 years during fiscal year 2025. This context suggests that the ruling may not only affect future asylum claims but also reflects ongoing shifts in migration patterns influenced by various socio-economic factors.[4]
Show source details & analysis (4 sources)
📊 Relevant Data
U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded 237,538 encounters with migrants at the southwest land border during fiscal year 2025.
Migrant encounters at US-Mexico border are at their lowest level in more than 50 years — Pew Research Center
The immigration court asylum grant rate was 19.2 percent in August 2025.
Immigration Court Asylum Grant Rates Cut in Half — TRAC Immigration
As of May 2026, 2,319,449 immigrants were awaiting asylum hearings or decisions out of a total immigration court backlog of 3,241,899 cases.
EOIR Immigration Court Backlog and Asylum Data — TRAC Immigration
📌 Key Facts
- On Thursday, June 25, 2026 the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that overturned a lower-court order that had blocked the border “metering” policy (6-3 decision).
- In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado the Court held that migrants turned back at the southern border before entering the United States have not legally “arrive[d] in” the country and therefore are not entitled to apply for asylum (Mullin v. Al Otro Lado).
- Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion said, invoking an ordinary-speech analogy that “a guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door,” and held federal law does not entitle someone standing in Mexico to apply for asylum or require an immigration officer to inspect them (Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion).
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a dissent from the bench — joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — saying the decision “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty” (Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent).
- The contested “metering policy” was first used under President Obama, expanded under President Trump, ended in 2020 and was formally rescinded by President Biden in 2021, but the Court’s ruling clears the way for the Trump administration to potentially revive it (metering policy).
- The legal fight reached the high court after a California federal judge in 2021 found metering unlawful, a divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed that ruling, and nearly half of the full Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case, providing the backdrop for Supreme Court review (California federal judge in 2021).
- Conservative commentators and the Trump administration characterized the decision as a major win to reduce asylum claims, with Fox News calling it a “major victory for President Trump” and noting conservatives’ view that prior rulings recognizing asylum-processing rights just outside ports of entry facilitated abuse (major victory for President Trump).
📰 Source Timeline (4)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- Fox News confirms that in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, decided Thursday, June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court held that migrants turned back at the southern border before entering the United States are not entitled to apply for asylum because they have not legally "arrive[d] in" the country.
- The article quotes Justice Samuel Alito’s majority reasoning that, in ordinary speech, a person does not "arrive in" a place before entering it, directly rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s broader interpretation.
- Fox characterizes the decision as a major victory for President Trump’s efforts to reduce asylum claims and notes that conservatives had viewed prior rulings recognizing asylum-processing rights for migrants just outside ports of entry as facilitating abuse.
- The article confirms the Supreme Court ruling was issued Thursday, June 25, 2026, in a 6-3 decision overturning a lower court order that had blocked the border 'metering' policy.
- It reiterates that the challenged policy limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day at U.S.-Mexico border ports of entry and had first been used under President Obama before expansion under President Trump.
- Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion framed the legal issue with the analogy that 'a guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door,' underscoring that migrants stopped before physical entry are not considered to have 'arrived' for asylum purposes.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a dissent from the bench, saying the decision 'regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty,' and Justice Alito unusually responded aloud, noting that both Obama and Trump administrations had used the policy.
- The article notes that the metering policy itself is not currently in effect, having ended in 2020 and been formally rescinded by President Biden in 2021, but that the Supreme Court ruling clears the way for the Trump administration to potentially revive it.
- It recounts that a California federal judge in 2021 found metering unlawful and a divided appeals court panel affirmed, with nearly half of the full Ninth Circuit voting to rehear, a backdrop that likely contributed to Supreme Court review.
- Article confirms on Thursday, June 25, 2026, that the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that people standing on the Mexican side of the border have not 'arrived in' the United States for asylum purposes.
- Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion holds that federal law does not entitle someone standing in Mexico to apply for asylum and does not require an immigration officer to inspect them.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, states that the decision 'blesses the Executive Branch's decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution.'
- The article reiterates that the case centers on the statutory phrases 'physically present in the United States' and 'arrives in the United States' and that attempting, but failing, to step onto U.S. soil does not qualify as arrival.
- It recounts that the Ninth Circuit panel majority had previously ruled against the government, finding the administration's reading would radically contract asylum rights, while Trump-appointed Judge Ryan Nelson dissented and Judge David Bress later criticized that panel decision.