Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that CBP metering policy does not violate asylum law, eliminating asylum seekers' principal legal challenge avenue

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that CBP's "metering" policy does not violate federal asylum law. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that noncitizens physically turned back at a port of entry before crossing the border line have not "arrived in the United States" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and therefore have no statutory right to apply for asylum. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, with Sotomayor warning the ruling would cause preventable deaths and drive more migrants toward dangerous illegal crossings.

The metering policy — under which CBP officers turn asylum seekers away at ports of entry, telling them the facility is at capacity and to return later — dates to 2018 but was heavily formalized and expanded under the current Trump administration as a tool to limit asylum intake at official crossing points. The Ninth Circuit had previously ruled for the challengers, holding that physical presence at the port of entry constituted "arriving in" the United States and triggered the asylum statute. Today's Supreme Court ruling reverses that circuit precedent nationwide.

The practical effect is significant: the executive branch can now implement metering without triggering the statutory screening process Congress created for asylum seekers. Individuals presenting themselves at a port of entry can be turned away without a credible-fear interview, without access to the asylum system, and without the procedural protections that attach once the right to apply is triggered. Justice Sotomayor's dissent noted the ruling is likely to increase dangerous illegal crossings, with attendant deaths, as asylum seekers who cannot access the legal process are pushed to other routes.