The Supreme Court's Al Otro Lado Decision: What “Arrives in the United States” Now Means for Asylum at the Border

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, one of the most consequential asylum-access cases in years. The question sounds technical — when does a person “arrive in the United States”? — but the answer shapes who can begin the asylum process at the southern border.

What the case was about

Federal law says that any noncitizen “who arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum, and that arriving applicants for admission must be inspected. Beginning in 2016, when arrivals at ports of entry along the U.S.–Mexico border exceeded processing capacity, the government adopted a practice known as “metering”: officers stationed at the borderline limited how many people could physically enter a port each day to be inspected and to seek asylum. People turned back remained on the Mexican side.

Asylum seekers and the organization Al Otro Lado sued in 2017, arguing that someone who presents at the border has “arrived” and cannot lawfully be refused inspection and access to the asylum process. The district court agreed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that a person “arrives” when they encounter a U.S. official at the border — even while still standing in Mexico. The metering policy itself was rescinded in 2021, but the government asked the Supreme Court to resolve the question, preserving its ability to use metering again.

What the Court held

By a 6–3 vote, in an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court reversed. It held that a person standing in Mexico does not “arrive in the United States” by attempting — and failing — to set foot in the country. Under the statute, a person “arrives” only upon crossing the border. The immigration laws therefore do not entitle a person on the Mexican side to apply for asylum, and do not require an officer to inspect them. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson; Justice Jackson also wrote separately in dissent.

The majority emphasized that, in its view, metering “merely delays entry” rather than permanently barring anyone from seeking asylum, and it noted that entering between ports of entry carries serious legal consequences of its own, including criminal exposure and potential ineligibility for asylum and other benefits.

What the decision does — and does not — do

The ruling means the government may lawfully limit daily processing at ports of entry without violating the inspection and asylum provisions the plaintiffs invoked. It is about where the asylum process can begin, not about the standards for winning or losing an asylum case.

It is equally important to understand what the decision does not change. It does not alter the asylum process for people who are already physically inside the United States. It does not change asylum eligibility criteria, deadlines, or defensive asylum in immigration court. And how the government will use this authority going forward — including whether and where metering resumes — remains to be seen.

If this affects your family

For families with relatives abroad who hope to seek protection, and for people already here whose cases involve entry-related questions, the decision's practical meaning is highly fact-specific. A case-specific consultation with an immigration attorney is the most reliable way to understand how this ruling may bear on your situation.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It summarizes a recent legal development; how the law applies depends on the specific facts of each case. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your situation. This website is attorney advertising.