US Supreme Court Allows Asylum Turnbacks at Border, Limiting Access to Protection
- Human Rights Research Center
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
Author: Christine Savino
July 3, 2026
HRRC condemns policies that prevent people fleeing persecution from meaningfully seeking asylum. Access to asylum should not depend on whether a person can physically cross a border before officials block them. When governments externalize asylum obligations by forcing people to wait in dangerous border conditions, they risk undermining the principle of non-refoulement and denying protection to those most in need.
![The US Supreme Court ruled that asylum seekers standing in Mexico have not legally “arrived in the United States” for purposes of applying for asylum. [Image credit: Wikimedia Commons]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f05ed1_beee9df7a0154adf9ea3b03129d48d96~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_735,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/f05ed1_beee9df7a0154adf9ea3b03129d48d96~mv2.jpg)
On June 25, 2026, the United States (US) Supreme Court ruled in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that asylum seekers standing on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border do not “arrive in the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act unless they physically cross the border.
In a 6-3 vote, the Court held that federal immigration law neither entitles such individuals to apply for asylum nor requires US immigration officers to inspect them while they remain in Mexico.
The case concerned a border-management practice known as “metering,” under which border officials cap the number of asylum seekers allowed to approach or be processed at ports of entry each day. The policy left asylum seekers from Mexico, Central America, Cuba, Venezuela, and some African countries waiting on the Mexican side of the border, often in unsafe and unstable conditions, before they could begin the US asylum process.
Under US law, a person may generally apply for asylum if they are “physically present in the United States” or if they “arrive in the United States,” regardless of their immigration status.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit, allowing officials to limit asylum processing at ports of entry based on claimed capacity or operational constraints.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito framed the case as having raised a statutory question about the meaning of the phrase “arrives in the United States.” The majority concluded that a person does not legally “arrive” by reaching the Mexican side of the border or by attempting, unsuccessfully, to enter the United States. Instead, the Court held that arrival requires that one physically cross into US territory.
“[I]n ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place … before the person enters that place,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
The ruling yields significant impacts on the processes involved in garnering asylum access. The Court’s decision allows officials to prevent asylum seekers from triggering the inspection and application process before they physically cross the border.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent warned that the decision could expose vulnerable people to serious harm by allowing the government to block asylum seekers from even presenting claims for protection.
While reading her 35-page written dissent, Sotomayor warned that “more people will die” as a result of the Court’s ruling.
“More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religion, nationality, or political opinion,” she stated.
The policy at issue was first used under the Obama administration and was later expanded by the Trump administration, before being rescinded in 2021 under President Biden. The Supreme Court found that the case was not moot because the government represented that it wished to resume metering when border conditions required it, and because lower-court relief had continued to restrict the government’s ability to use the practice in the Ninth Circuit. . The ruling therefore gives federal officials renewed legal space to restrict access to asylum processing at ports of entry, raising serious concerns about whether people fleeing persecution can meaningfully seek protection before being turned away.
Glossary
Asylum — Protection that may be granted to a person who is physically present in the United States or seeking entry at a port of entry and who fears persecution in their country of origin.
Asylum seeker — A person seeking international protection whose claim for refugee status or asylum has not yet been finally decided.
Dissent — A separate opinion written by a judge or justice who disagrees with the majority’s decision.
Immigration and Nationality Act — The main federal statute governing US immigration law, including admission, removal, asylum, refugee protection, and nationality.
Metering — A border practice under which US officials limit the number of asylum seekers who may approach ports of entry each day to request protection.
Lower-court — A court whose decision may be reviewed by a higher court on appeal. In this case, the Ninth Circuit was the lower court reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Moot — No longer presenting a live legal dispute for a court to resolve, usually because the underlying issue has ended or lost practical significance.
Non-refoulement — The principle that a person must not be expelled or returned to a place where their life or freedom would be in danger.
Port of entry — A place where a person may lawfully enter a country, such as an international airport, land border crossing, or seaport.
Refugee — A person who is outside their country of origin and cannot or does not want to return because they face persecution or serious threats to their life, freedom, or safety.
Rescinded — Cancelled, withdrawn, or made no longer effective.
Statutory — Relating to a statute, meaning a law enacted by a legislature.
References
