On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that will significantly alter the situation for thousands of people seeking asylum at the southern border. The decision gives the government the authority, under the law, to deny the right to apply for asylum to certain individuals, as crossing onto U.S. soil is the legal trigger for asylum eligibility. If you or a loved one is considering seeking asylum, contact Fayad Law, P.C. to speak with one of our experienced asylum attorneys about how this new ruling may affect your options and the best path forward. Here is a simple explanation of what happened, what it means, and what you can do right now.
What the Supreme Court Decided on June 25, 2026
The Case: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado Explained in Plain Terms
The case the Court was considering, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, involved a policy known as “metering”. This practice enables U.S. border officers to limit the number of people who may come to the port of entry on any given day to ask for asylum. Those arriving after the quota for the day is full are sent back and told to return, sometimes after a few days, weeks or even months. Advocacy groups believed that the practice was against the law because people who were turned away from ports of entry had “arrived in” the United States and eligible to apply for asylum. The lower courts accepted this point and prohibited the policy.
What Is the “Metering” Policy?
How Metering Works at the U.S.–Mexico Border
Metering is straightforward in practice: border agents place a cap on how many people can approach a port of entry each day to seek protection. When that cap is hit, anyone else who shows up is turned back to Mexico and given a number or told to return later. They are not allowed to even begin the asylum process. The problem is that “later” can mean a very long time. When the policy was previously in place, wait lists stretched to tens of thousands of people. Many families ended up living in makeshift camps along the Mexican side of the border, exposed to dangerous conditions while waiting for their turn.
A History of Metering
Metering is not a new idea. It was first introduced during the Obama administration when a surge of migrants arrived at the San Diego–Tijuana crossing. The Trump administration later expanded it to cover all border crossings with Mexico during his first term. The policy effectively ended in 2020, when the government introduced COVID-19 pandemic restrictions at the border. President Biden formally ended it in 2021. A federal judge in California later found that metering had violated the legal rights of asylum seekers, and an appeals court upheld that finding, until now.
The Legal Question at the Heart of This Case
What Does “Arrives In the United States” Actually Mean Under Federal Law?
At the core of this case was a simple but consequential question: when does someone legally “arrive in” the United States?
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a person who arrives in the United States can apply for asylum. The law does not require that person to have entered legally. It only requires that they be physically present on U.S. soil. For years, courts and advocates understood this to include anyone who presented themselves at a port of entry — a legal border crossing — and asked for protection.
How the Court Interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
The majority read the law differently. Six justices concluded that a person does not legally “arrive in” the United States by presenting themselves at a port of entry. Until they physically cross the threshold onto U.S. territory, the government is not obligated to accept their asylum claim.
What the Majority Opinion Says
The “Knocking on the Front Door” Argument Explained
Justice Alito’s majority opinion used a simple analogy to explain the Court’s reasoning. “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door,” he wrote. In other words, showing up at the border does not equal arriving in the country. Under the majority’s view, the legal protections that come with “arriving in the United States” only kick in once someone has physically crossed onto U.S. soil, something metering prevents them from doing.
Why the Court Said Metering Is a “Delay,” Not a Permanent Bar
The majority also emphasized that metering does not permanently close the door on asylum. The government’s position, which the Court accepted, is that people turned away under the policy can come back. They are not denied asylum forever. They are delayed. In the Court’s view, that distinction matters legally, even if the practical reality for families waiting in dangerous border towns tells a different story.
The Dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench, a step justices take only when they feel strongly about a decision. She argued that the majority’s reading of the law ignores what happens at a port of entry. When border agents speak with a migrant, that interaction is itself the beginning of “arriving in” the United States. Blocking someone before that conversation happens or after it starts still amounts to denying them their legal rights. Justice Sotomayor also delivered a pointed moral rebuke, stating the ruling “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”
What This Ruling Means for Asylum Seekers Right Now
Can You Still Apply for Asylum at the U.S. Border?
Yes, but it is now much harder. The Supreme Court ruled that asylum seekers can be turned away at U.S. border crossings. If metering is implemented again, people arriving at a port of entry may be turned back to Mexico before they can make a formal asylum claim. It is important to note that metering is not currently in place at all crossings. But advocates expect the administration to move quickly given this ruling.
What Happens If You Are Turned Away Under the Metering Policy?
If you are turned away under a metering policy, you are not automatically barred from asylum forever. You may be placed on a waiting list and told to return. However, waiting in Mexico can be extremely dangerous. Many border towns have high rates of kidnapping, extortion, and violence targeting migrants specifically. Being turned away does not mean your case is over, but it does mean significant risk while you wait.
Safer and Still-Available Legal Pathways to Seek Protection
There are other ways to seek protection that this ruling does not affect. If you are already in the United States, you may still apply for asylum affirmatively through USCIS. You may also be eligible for Withholding of Removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture, both of which provide protection even when asylum is denied. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) remains available for nationals of certain countries facing ongoing crises. Speaking with an immigration attorney before making any decisions is strongly advised.
What Should You Do If This Ruling Affects You or Your Family?
Your Rights at the Border Have Not Disappeared: Here’s What Still Applies
This ruling limit one specific pathway, presenting yourself at a port of entry and asking for asylum before crossing. It does not eliminate the asylum system. People who are already in the United States, still have the right to apply for asylum and to have their cases heard. If you are already here, your rights under current law remain intact.
How Fayad Law Can Help You Navigate Asylum and Immigration Protection
Navigating asylum law was complicated before this ruling. It is even more so now. At Fayad Law, P.C., our immigration attorneys stay current with every shift in policy and precedent, including major decisions like this one. We work with clients across Washington D.C. and Virginia, including in Fairfax, Richmond, to identify the safest and most effective path forward given their unique circumstances. Whether you are exploring asylum, TPS, or other forms of protection, we can help you understand your options and build a strategy. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this ruling mean asylum is now illegal in the U.S.?
No. Asylum remains a legal protection available in the United States. What this ruling does is allow the government to prevent people from crossing into U.S. territory at ports of entry, which is what triggers the right to apply.
Can border agents now turn away anyone at the southern border?
The ruling permits the government to reinstate metering, which limits how many people can approach a port of entry each day. However, it does not give border agents unlimited authority to turn away every single person. Legal frameworks still apply, and the administration must implement any revived policy within those boundaries.
What happens to asylum seekers already inside the U.S.?
This ruling does not affect people who are already in the United States and have pending asylum applications or cases in immigration court. Their proceedings continue under existing law. If you have an active case, this decision does not change your status or timeline.
Does this ruling affect people applying for asylum from inside the U.S.?
No. Affirmative asylum applications filed with USCIS by people already living in the U.S. are not affected by this ruling. The decision specifically addresses the metering practice at ports of entry, not the internal asylum application process.
What is the difference between asylum and Temporary Protected Status (TPS)?
Asylum is a protection for individuals who can show they face persecution in their home country based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. TPS is a temporary status granted to nationals of specific countries experiencing ongoing conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions.
