The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration can deny entry to asylum seekers at the southern border who have not yet entered U.S. territory. This decision addresses a prolonged legal dispute regarding a Border Patrol practice implemented when there is limited capacity to process individuals at ports of entry. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in the case Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, stated, "An alien standing in Mexico does not 'arriv[e] in the United States' by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien 'arrives in the United States' only when he crosses the border."
The practice, known as metering, was initially introduced by Customs and Border Protection during the Obama administration in 2016 and later expanded under Trump. Asylum seekers typically waited in Mexico until conditions allowed them to attempt entry again, although those with valid travel documents could enter at any time. This policy was overturned by a judge during the Biden administration.
Lawyers for Al Otro Lado, a non-profit organization assisting migrants, were unable to persuade the court that immigration law required agents to process all asylum seekers at ports of entry. During oral arguments, Justice Alito questioned the definition of 'arrival' in the context of U.S. law regarding asylum claims. James Percival, the General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, stated, "We had to go all the way to SCOTUS to vindicate the principle that an alien is not 'in the United States' until he is, in fact, in the United States."