On June 25, 2026, the United States Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a sweeping victory in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, ruling 6–3 that immigration agents may physically block asylum seekers from crossing into the United States at official ports of entry — even if those individuals are trying to invoke their legal right to apply for asylum. The decision clears the way for the revival of the administration’s “metering” policy, which had been blocked by lower federal courts.
What the Supreme Court Ruled
Writing for the six-justice conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not guarantee asylum seekers the right to physically enter U.S. territory before filing a claim. Under the Court’s interpretation, the government may operate “metering” — a practice in which CBP officers stationed at ports of entry physically prevent people from stepping onto U.S. soil, thereby preventing them from triggering the statutory right to apply for asylum.
The three liberal justices dissented sharply. Writing for the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the ruling “circumvents” U.S. asylum law and effectively allows the executive branch to nullify a right that Congress explicitly created. The INA states that any “alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum — a phrase the majority interpreted narrowly.
What Is “Metering” and Why It Matters
The metering policy, also sometimes called “turnback” or “queue management,” was first widely used during the first Trump administration starting in 2018. Under metering, CBP officers physically stand at the international boundary at ports of entry and tell asylum seekers — including families with children and individuals fleeing violence — that the port is “at capacity” and that they must wait, sometimes for weeks or months, in Mexico or at the border. Because they never physically crossed onto U.S. soil, the government argued they could not file for asylum.
Human rights organizations documented thousands of cases in which metered individuals faced violence, kidnapping, and extortion while waiting in Mexico. The Biden administration wound down the policy, and lower courts had blocked Trump administration attempts to reinstate it. The June 25 SCOTUS ruling removes those legal barriers.
Key Facts: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Mullin v. Al Otro Lado |
| Decision Date | June 25, 2026 |
| Vote | 6–3 (ideological lines) |
| Majority Author | Justice Samuel Alito |
| Dissent Author | Justice Elena Kagan |
| Policy Revived | “Metering” / turnback at ports of entry |
| Legal Basis | INA § 208 — interpretation of “physically present or arriving” |
| Immediate Effect | Administration may immediately reinstate metering at all ports of entry |
How Metering Differs from the Asylum Ban
It is important to distinguish metering from the separate “asylum ban” the administration has also sought to implement. Metering targets individuals at ports of entry — people who are trying to enter legally through official checkpoints. The asylum ban more broadly targets individuals who cross between ports of entry. Both policies were pending in the courts simultaneously, and the June 25 ruling addresses only the metering/port-of-entry scenario.
| Policy | Who It Targets | Legal Status (June 2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Metering / Turnback | Asylum seekers at official ports of entry | ✅ Allowed — SCOTUS June 25, 2026 |
| Asylum Ban (between POEs) | People who cross between ports of entry | ⚖️ Separate litigation ongoing |
| TPS Termination | TPS holders from Haiti & Syria | 🚨 Allowed — SCOTUS June 25, 2026 |
What Happens Next: Timeline
The Trump administration is expected to move quickly to implement the metering policy at major ports of entry, particularly San Ysidro (San Diego/Tijuana), El Paso, and Laredo. There is no injunction blocking the practice — the Supreme Court’s ruling removes the last legal barrier. Immigration attorneys and rights groups say the administration could begin physically blocking asylum seekers at ports of entry within days.
| Timeline | Expected Development |
|---|---|
| Late June 2026 | CBP begins implementing metering at major ports of entry |
| July 2026 | DHS expected to issue formal metering policy directive; advocacy groups may file new legal challenges under different theories |
| Fall 2026 | Impact on asylum application volumes and processing will become measurable ; separate asylum ban litigation continues in lower courts |
| Ongoing | International pressure from human rights organizations and UNHCR likely to escalate |
What This Means for Asylum Seekers
For individuals who are currently in Mexico or at the U.S. border seeking asylum, the practical consequences of this ruling are severe. Metering means that even if you are trying to enter at a legal port of entry — following the administration’s own stated instructions to “do it the legal way” — CBP officers can now turn you away before you can file an asylum claim. Without setting foot on U.S. soil, you have no statutory right to apply for asylum under U.S. law, according to the majority’s interpretation.
People already inside the United States in valid immigration status, with pending asylum claims, or with Employment Authorization Documents are not directly affected by this ruling. Metering applies to the border entry process, not to cases already inside the U.S. system. If you are inside the U.S. and have already filed an asylum application, your case continues under existing law.
FAQ: Supreme Court Asylum Metering Ruling 2026
Related Articles
For more information on related immigration topics, see:
