Supreme Court Weighs Whether US Can Turn Back Asylum-Seekers at the Border

The Supreme Court held Thursday that, for the purposes of federal immigration law, asylum-seekers do not arrive in the United States until they physically cross the border, meaning that the government can turn them away before they cross the border to claim asylum.

The case of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, formerly Noem v. Al Otro Lado, covered whether the government can systematically turn back asylum-seekers before they reach the U.S. border. The court ruled that noncitizens can apply for asylum when they are “physically present in the United States” or when they “arrive in the United States.” 

The Trump administration argued the refusal policy is a “critical tool for addressing” surges in immigrants at the border. While the policy is no longer in place, the Trump administration is seeking flexibility to revive it.

“We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the three dissenting justices.

“The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die,” Sotomayor wrote. “More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not.”

Almost 10 years ago, the Trump administration responded to a surge of Haitian immigrants seeking asylum at a port of entry near San Diego, California. The Department of Homeland Security started a policy called “metering.” Customs and Border Protection officers stood along the U.S.-Mexico border and turned back noncitizens without valid travel documents, including asylum-seekers before they could enter the United States and claim asylum. The administration extended the policy to all ports of entry by 2018. 

The Department of Homeland Security rescinded the memoranda authorizing the policy of “metering” asylum-seekers more than four years ago.

Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group, and 13 asylum-seekers sued the federal court in California to challenge the policy. 

In 2024, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the plaintiffs. 

The federal government argued that the Supreme Court held more than 30 years ago, in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., that immigration laws do not protect refugees trying to reach the United States but are intercepted at sea before they do so. 

The government also argues the 9th Circuit panel deprived the executive branch of a tool for addressing border surges and preventing overcrowding at ports of entry.