Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: the Supreme Court upholds metering at the border

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5. The vote was 6-3, and Justice Alito wrote for the majority.

The case was about metering. That is the practice of limiting how many people can approach or be processed at a port of entry on a given day, so that others wait on the Mexican side of the border. People who were turned back argued that they had already "arrived in" the United States and so had the right to apply for asylum.

The Court disagreed. It held that a person standing in Mexico has not "arrived in the United States" under 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(1), and that metering is lawful.

What the Court held

The asylum statute, INA 208(a)(1), lets a person who has arrived in the United States apply for asylum. The question in Al Otro Lado was where that line is drawn.

The majority's answer is that a person still standing in Mexico has not arrived. The Court also held that CBP's metering practice is lawful. For people turned back at the port, the practical result is that the statute's promise of a chance to apply did not yet reach them while they were still in Mexico.

Three justices dissented. The majority opinion is the law.

Where it fits: the other border rules as of October 6, 2026

Metering is one of several policies at the southern border that have been in court. The others have mostly gone the other way. This is the status in our records as of October 6, 2026. These cases are still moving, so check the current status before relying on any of it.

So the picture is mixed. The Supreme Court has approved one tool for keeping people from reaching the border. Lower courts have struck down several rules that limited asylum for people who did reach it.

What it does not change for people already here

Al Otro Lado is about people who never reached U.S. soil. If you are already in the United States, the decision does not change how you apply or what you have to prove.

• You still apply under the same statute. The eligibility rules in INA 208 are unchanged, including the one-year filing deadline and its exceptions. See our post on one-year deadline exceptions.
• Withholding and CAT are still available under their own standards. See our comparison of asylum, withholding and CAT.
• Credible fear screening still follows 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B) for people placed in expedited removal.
• Immigration court procedure is unchanged. Your case is decided on the record built at your hearing, which matters even more after Urias-Orellana v. Bondi.

What to watch

• Whether the Supreme Court takes up the Proclamation 10888 case, No. 26-239.
• The Ninth Circuit appeal in the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways case, and whether any stay is sought.
• The D.C. Circuit appeal in the Securing the Border case.

Each of these can change who may apply for asylum at the border and how they are screened. None of them changes the fact that a case already in immigration court is decided on its own record.

Border law is changing on several fronts at once, and the rules that apply depend on when and where a person entered. If you have questions about how any of this affects your own case, talk to an immigration lawyer.