In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that asylum eligibility requires migrants to physically enter the United States, sharply narrowing claims for people turned away at ports of entry. While the Trump administration and its allies hailed the ruling as re
On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court delivered a decision that immigration advocates say could change how people try to reach the United States—right down to where they decide to step.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the justices held that migrants must “physically set foot in the United States” to be eligible to apply for asylum. The ruling reversed lower-court decisions that had required the government to process certain asylum seekers who were turned away at ports of entry.
The case landed with particular force because it drew a sharp line around the moment at which a person becomes able to seek protection. Justice Sonia Sotomayor. writing in dissent. argued the majority’s interpretation creates a “perverse incentive” to enter illegally rather than to wait for a lawful option at a checkpoint.
“This Court has previously recognized that immigration statutes and procedures should not be construed to ‘create a perverse incentive to enter at an unlawful rather than a lawful location. Yet, the majority’s construction does exactly that,” Sotomayor wrote. “It tells asylum seekers that they may apply for asylum if they can make it across the border illegally but that they cannot apply if they patiently wait at the edge of a port of entry.”.
Al Otro Lado made a similar case in a court filing. warning that restricting asylum access to people who physically enter the United States would “create a perverse incentive to cross the border between ports of entry” because those who do so would receive greater rights than people stopped at ports.
Thursday’s ruling was broadly viewed by immigration hawks as making asylum claims harder to obtain. The Trump administration has celebrated the outcome as a way to reassert control over the asylum process and border enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment on whether it has prepared for a possible increase in asylum seekers crossing illegally.
The conservative majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, downplayed that risk. In the majority’s view, the practice of metering—limiting how many asylum seekers can approach or enter a port of entry each day for processing—does not permanently close the door.
“Metering does not permanently bar any alien from arriving in the United States and then applying for asylum. ” Alito wrote for the majority. “Illegal entry, on the other hand, may be expensive and dangerous, and it carries adverse legal effects. Entry at an improper location is a crime. An alien becomes ineligible for asylum if he unlawfully re-enters the country after having been removed.”.
He added that if people are stopped or delayed due to metering. a sudden decision to run all the risks of illegal entry is unlikely to be the better option. “An alien whose admission and inspection are delayed due to metering would need a powerful reason to apply for asylum immediately for it to be preferable to run all the risks of illegal entry. ” Alito wrote.
But Sotomayor’s dissent focused on how the Supreme Court’s framework could alter behavior at the border. She said the problem was never simply whether illegal entry guarantees safety. The issue, she wrote, is the signal the ruling sends about when asylum becomes available.
“The point. however. is not that illegal entry always produces a net windfall for asylum seekers; it is that Congress was unlikely to devise a system in which asylum is available to those who unlawfully set foot over the border. but not to those who attempt to comply with the law and are physically blocked from entering at the threshold of a port of entry by an immigration officer. ” Sotomayor wrote. “It is also the unfortunate reality that. despite the adverse consequences the majority cites. many asylum seekers are desperate enough to flee the persecution they face in their home countries that they are willing to run significant risks to apply for asylum.”.
Sotomayor also pointed to a 2018 report from the DHS Office of the Inspector General that found metering had “unintended consequences. ” including effects that “le[d] some aliens who would otherwise seek legal entry into the United States to cross the border illegally.” She noted that the report was published before lower courts held that migrants turned away at the border could apply for asylum. meaning the conditions it addressed are comparable to the status quo set by the Supreme Court.
For DHS, the practical question now is whether discouraging asylum claims for people turned away at ports of entry will reduce crossings—or reshape them into a different pattern.
Matt Crapo. the director of litigation at the right-wing Federation for American Immigration Reform. said the Trump administration has demonstrated it can secure the border against illegal entries. “This administration has demonstrated that the border can be secured against illegal entries. As border wall construction continues, the ability to deter illegal crossings will only improve,” Crapo told MISRYOUM.
“So long as the federal government makes border security a priority, illegal crossings should not be a major concern,” he added.
At the center of the dispute is metering itself: limiting how many asylum seekers can approach or enter a U.S. port of entry each day for processing. Under the policy, migrants were often told to wait in Mexico until U.S. officials determined the port had capacity.
As the Supreme Court narrows asylum eligibility to those who physically enter the country. the dissent’s warning hangs in the air: that people who are “physically blocked” at the edge of a port of entry may decide. in desperation. that only stepping across somewhere else will preserve their chance to be heard.
The court’s majority insists metering keeps an avenue open and argues that illegal entry carries consequences that undercut any supposed advantage. The dissent argues the system’s incentives have shifted in the other direction. and that those incentives may matter most at the moment when exhaustion and fear collide with the law.
SCOTUS asylum immigration border metering Mullin v. Al Otro Lado Sonia Sotomayor Samuel Alito Al Otro Lado Department of Homeland Security asylum eligibility