Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
Question presented
Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border 'arrives in the United States' within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., thereby gaining eligibility to apply for asylum and requiring inspection by immigration officers.
Background
The Department of Homeland Security has, at times since 2016, employed a practice known as 'metering' under which Customs and Border Protection officers stationed at the borderline of a port of entry direct noncitizens without valid travel documents to wait on the Mexican side before crossing into the United States to be processed. The District Court held the practice unlawful as a withholding of inspection and asylum-eligibility processing under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1225. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that 'arrives in the United States' encompasses noncitizens who encounter officials at the border, whichever side of the line they are standing on. The Supreme Court is asked whether the phrase reaches a noncitizen physically stopped on the Mexican side of the line.
Procedural posture
- Argued
- March 24, 2026
- Decided
- Pending
- Tenth Seat opinion published
- May 14, 2026
- Term
- OT 2025
The Tenth Seat
- Opinion of the Courtread →
Reverse and remand. The phrase 'arrives in the United States' in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1) does not extend to a noncitizen physically stopped on the Mexican side of the border by an immigration officer at a port of entry. The case is justiciable; the District Court's class-wide declaration and individual injunctive relief remain in effect.
- Dissentread →
Affirm. The statutory text, the parenthetical's presupposition that arrival may occur away from designated ports, the agency's 1998 regulation defining 'arriving alien' to include those 'coming or attempting to come' to a port-of-entry, the United States' non-refoulement obligation under the 1967 Protocol, and the structural absurdity of a mandatory-inspection scheme an officer can evade by physical interposition all point the other way. Sale's reasoning concerns high-seas conduct outside U.S. territory and does not control land-border conduct by officers on U.S. soil.
- Sources & Verificationread →
The case synthesis, oral argument signals, precedent analysis, and citation verification log behind these opinions.
- Comparison with the Court’s decisionPending decision
Published within seven days of the Court’s opinion. Will score outcome alignment, reasoning alignment, citation overlap, and what the Tenth Seat missed.