Story Highlights
- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that “metering,” which limits the number of daily asylum applicants at ports of entry, does not violate federal immigration law
- Justice Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, an unusual signal of disagreement, prompting a public response from Justice Samuel Alito
- The policy, last used in 2021, was challenged by Al Otro Lado, a binational legal aid organization, and previously ruled unlawful by both a district court and the Ninth Circuit
What Happened
The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, centered on a Department of Homeland Security practice known as “metering,” under which immigration officers stationed at official border crossings limited how many asylum seekers could apply each day, physically blocking others from setting foot on U.S. soil to make their claims. The practice originated under the Obama administration and was substantially expanded during Trump’s first term, before courts found it unlawful in both 2022 and 2024. Although metering has not been formally in effect since 2021, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals‘ ruling that had declared the practice illegal, seeking to preserve the tool for potential future use.
Writing for the six-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that the practice did not violate the federal law requiring immigration officials to inspect and process individuals seeking asylum. The ruling overturned the lower court order that had blocked the practice and effectively restored DHS’s discretion to reinstate metering at its own determination, though the agency has not announced concrete plans to do so. Lawyers for the binational legal aid group Al Otro Lado, which originally brought the case alongside individual asylum seekers in 2017, argued that the practice created a humanitarian crisis in the past, with thousands of people forced to wait in unsafe, makeshift shelters near the border for the chance to apply.
The decision produced an unusually public display of disagreement among the justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, read her dissent aloud from the bench, a step justices reserve for cases where they believe the majority has committed a serious legal or moral error. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that the ruling “blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution,” despite what she described as a detailed inspection and asylum system that Congress itself enacted and commands. Alito responded publicly to Sotomayor’s remarks from the bench, a notable departure from the customary decorum among justices when issuing rulings.
The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the decision. James Percival, the agency’s general counsel, said the ruling “opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border.” The administration has argued that metering became necessary in the past to manage substantial increases in asylum seekers, while DHS did not commit to a specific plan for reinstating the practice going forward. Federal attorneys representing the government noted that individuals turned away under metering could attempt to return later, though advocates pointed out that wait times under the prior policy frequently stretched into the thousands of people deep.
Why It Matters
The ruling sits at the intersection of two competing constitutional and statutory frameworks: the executive branch’s broad authority over border security and immigration enforcement, and Congress’s detailed statutory scheme governing how asylum claims must be processed once an individual reaches U.S. territory or a port of entry. Sotomayor’s dissent specifically frames the decision as an affront to congressional authority, arguing that the majority has effectively allowed the executive branch to override a system Congress itself designed and mandated by statute, raising broader separation-of-powers concerns beyond the immigration context alone.
For asylum seekers and the legal aid organizations that represent them, the ruling reopens the door to a practice that the lower courts, after extensive factual records, had already determined caused serious humanitarian harm and likely violated the law. The decision underscores how much practical authority the executive branch retains over the on-the-ground mechanics of immigration enforcement, even when Congress has enacted specific statutory protections, so long as the Supreme Court is persuaded that the relevant statute does not unambiguously foreclose the practice in question.
The case also reflects a broader pattern this term in which the Supreme Court has consistently sided with the Trump administration on major immigration disputes, including separate rulings this same week allowing the administration to end Temporary Protected Status designations for Haitian and Syrian nationals. Taken together, these decisions substantially expand the discretion available to the executive branch in shaping immigration policy with limited judicial interference, a development with significant implications for how future administrations, of either party, might similarly use executive authority absent new congressional action.
For court watchers and legal scholars, the unusual public exchange between Sotomayor and Alito signals a level of friction on the Court that extends beyond ordinary written disagreement, suggesting the justices themselves view the stakes of this term’s immigration rulings as unusually high.
Economic and Global Context
The ruling carries practical implications for border communities and the broader infrastructure surrounding asylum processing. When metering was previously in effect, the resulting backlogs created significant strain on shelters, nonprofit organizations, and local governments in border cities, many of which absorbed substantial costs associated with housing and supporting those awaiting processing. A reinstatement of the practice could shift those burdens back onto border communities and humanitarian organizations, with downstream fiscal effects for state and local governments in Texas, Arizona, and California.
Internationally, the ruling has drawn attention from human rights organizations and foreign governments concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers, particularly those fleeing instability in Central America and elsewhere. Advocacy groups have warned that resumed metering, combined with other border restrictions already in place, could result in increased reliance on dangerous unauthorized crossing routes, with corresponding humanitarian and security consequences that extend beyond the immediate legal question decided by the Court.
The decision also fits within the administration’s broader push to reduce humanitarian migration pathways, a policy direction that intersects with ongoing debates in Congress over comprehensive immigration reform. Advocacy groups, including the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, have explicitly called on Congress to respond legislatively to correct what they view as the Court’s error, though prospects for such legislation remain uncertain given the current composition and priorities of Congress.
Implications
In the near term, DHS retains discretion over whether and how to reinstate metering, meaning the practical effects of the ruling depend significantly on subsequent agency decisions rather than the ruling itself. Advocacy organizations are likely to closely monitor DHS announcements and may pursue new legal challenges if metering is reinstated in a manner they believe exceeds even the latitude granted by this ruling.
For Congress, the ruling places renewed pressure on lawmakers to consider legislative responses, though any such effort would require building consensus across a deeply divided body on an issue that has resisted comprehensive reform for decades. Absent congressional action, the executive branch’s discretion in this area, now reinforced by the Supreme Court, is likely to remain the controlling factor in how asylum processing operates at the southern border.
For the broader judiciary, the ruling adds to a growing body of this term’s immigration precedent that lower courts will need to apply in future cases, particularly regarding how much deference courts should extend to executive branch interpretations of ambiguous immigration statutes. Sotomayor’s dissent, given its unusual oral delivery, may also serve as a rallying point for future legal challenges seeking to narrow the ruling’s practical scope.
For voters and policymakers heading into the November midterms, the decision reinforces immigration’s continued centrality as a defining issue, with this term’s pattern of Supreme Court rulings likely to feature prominently in campaign messaging from both parties.
Sources
“Supreme Court clears way for Trump administration to revive restrictive immigration policy”
