RAICES Bulletin: Supreme Court Rules Asylum Rights Restricted to People on U.S. Soil
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Supreme Court ruled that immigration officials can turn away asylum seekers at the southern border because the legal definition of "arriving in the United States" requires physical entry onto U.S. soil. This restrictive ruling will likely force individuals who are seeking safety to attempt dangerous crossings between official ports of entry to access legal protection.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that immigration officials can turn away asylum seekers who have not physically crossed the U.S. border. Reviewing the defunct practice of "metering" (turning back undocumented noncitizens when ports are full), the Court had to decide if "arriving in the United States" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) includes standing at the border or requires stepping onto U.S. soil.
Rationale: The majority strictly interpreted "arrives in the United States" to mean physical entry. Citing statutory context and the presumption against extraterritoriality, the Court noted that other INA provisions distinguish between actual and attempted entry, signaling Congress' intent to use restrictive language. Therefore, the Court ruled that "arrival" does not include noncitizens waiting at the border's threshold.
RAICES Impact: This ruling does not directly impact current RAICES clients, as the organization solely represents individuals already in the U.S. facing legal proceedings. However, it will likely force asylum seekers to cross between official ports of entry. While they retain asylum rights once on U.S. soil, irregular entry can complicate their cases—a challenge RAICES is prepared to handle.
Community Impact: Conditioning asylum on physical entry pushes asylum seekers toward dangerous crossings and heavily burdens border communities. As Justice Sotomayor’s dissent noted, individuals turned back to Mexico are often stranded in makeshift camps without basic necessities, exposing them to cartel violence, extortion, and kidnapping. Ultimately, this ruling raises barriers to legal protection and highlights the critical need for continued advocacy.
Related Legal Battles: Practitioners must monitor future litigation over restrictive policies like metering, particularly if the government tries to reinstate them. Furthermore, Justice Thomas’ concurrence threatens judicial oversight by questioning lower courts' authority to grant declaratory relief in immigration cases.
Broader Immigration Strategy: This decision aligns with a broader strategy of physical deterrence and border externalization. By weaponizing port capacity and restricting the definition of "arrival," the government bypasses decades of humanitarian law without altering asylum statutes. This approach artificially suppresses claims, forces migrants into hazardous wait periods in Mexico, and shuts out marginalized communities seeking refuge.
