Supreme Court asylum ruling clears way to revive border metering

↻Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.→

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mullin v. Al Otro Lado decision on June 25, 2026 cleared a key legal barrier to border policies sometimes described as “metering”—a flow-management approach that limits physical access to U.S.-Mexico ports of entry while asylum seekers wait outside U.S. territory.

At issue was when a person is considered to have “arrived in the United States” for asylum/inspection purposes at the border. Legal and operational experts say that timing trigger can reshape what U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can do around ports of entry going forward—without requiring agencies to follow whatever timetable lower courts previously imposed.

What the Court decided on June 25 i

In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Supreme Court held that a person who has not “arrived in the United States” can be turned away at the border under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In practical terms, the ruling focuses on the legal meaning of “arrived” for the access-to-asylum/inspection pathway tied to port-of-entry processing.

What “metering” means for readers i

“Metering” is a general label for policies that control how many people reach the front of the line at a port of entry. Instead of allowing immediate physical access for every arriving asylum seeker, metering-style practices aim to manage capacity—often by requiring people to wait outside U.S. territory while the government manages processing and throughput.

Because asylum access can turn on the Court’s “arrived” concept, the operational question becomes less about one program name and more about how CBP/DHS decides when someone is eligible to be processed through the port-of-entry inspection/asylum pathway.

Who won procedurally after the Supreme Court ruling i

Procedurally, the Supreme Court reversed lower-court blocking of the government’s position on the core legal question. That means the lower-court roadblock that previously constrained the legal interpretation has been removed at the Supreme Court level.

However, the decision does not automatically guarantee that any metering-like practice will restart nationwide on a specific date. Any concrete changes would still depend on DHS/CBP operational decisions and could face additional challenges in federal court.

Who is affected—and what to watch next i

For asylum seekers at the southern border, the immediate practical concern is whether officials can require additional waiting outside U.S. territory before someone is treated as having “arrived” for asylum/inspection purposes at a port of entry.

For attorneys, advocates, and courts, the ruling is a reminder that future disputes may hinge on the timing and facts used to determine “arrival.”

What to watch next: DHS/CBP operational guidance, any updated directives on port-of-entry processing, and follow-on lawsuits that argue the agencies’ implementation goes too far—or differs from what the Supreme Court’s interpretation allows.

Sources

• U.S. Supreme Court slip opinion: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (No. 25–5) (June 25, 2026)
• Associated Press: “Supreme Court clears way for Trump administration to revive restrictive policy for asylum seekers” (June 25, 2026)
• Axios: “Supreme Court backs Trump on stricter asylum rules” (June 25, 2026)

↻Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.→

⇄Ask Interactive NewsRelated NewsDive deeper into these stories and how they connect.→

• Judge Temporarily Pauses USCIS Work-Permit Restrictions for Asylum Seekers and TPS Holders
• EEOC Proposes Ending Recurring Race and Sex Workforce Reports
• Education Department Removes Title VI Disparate-Impact Rules
• New DHS Rule Would Cap Many Student and Exchange Visits at Four Years