Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

Docket Number: 25-5
Citation: 609/1
Term: October Term 2025
Argued: March 24, 2026
Decided: June 25, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Author: Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Concurring: Samuel A. Alito, Jr., John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson

AI-Generated Summary

Case Information:

Case Name: Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Al Otro Lado et al.
Docket Number: No. 25–5
Dates: Argued March 24, 2026—Decided June 25, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Facts of the Case:

In 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection experienced a surge of aliens seeking admission at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, exceeding processing capacity and creating unsafe conditions. DHS adopted a "metering" policy limiting daily inspections and asylum applications, enforced by officials on the U.S. side preventing excess entry. The policy continued across administrations.
Asylum seekers and the organization Al Otro Lado filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging the metering policy unlawfully withheld inspection and asylum processing under the INA.
The District Court certified a class of noncitizens seeking asylum at certain ports who were or would be denied access. It granted summary judgment, declaring the denial unlawful. DHS rescinded the policy in November 2021. A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in relevant part, holding that an alien "arrives in the United States" upon encountering a U.S. official while standing on the Mexico side of the border.

Legal Issues Presented:

The central question is when an alien "arrives in the United States" under 8 U.S.C. §§1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1): when standing in Mexico at the border or only upon crossing the border.
The case involves statutory interpretation of the INA provisions governing inspection of applicants for admission and eligibility to apply for asylum.
The Government argued the ordinary meaning requires actual entry. Respondents argued the phrase includes those in the process of arriving, relying on the canon against surplusage and treaty obligations.

The Court's Decision (Main Opinion):

Author & Type: Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett), which is a majority opinion.
Holding: An alien standing in Mexico does not "arriv[e] in the United States" by attempting and failing to set foot in the country. An alien "arrives in the United States" only when crossing the border. The INA neither entitles such an alien to apply for asylum nor requires inspection.
Legal Reasoning: The phrase carries its ordinary meaning—an arrival occurs only upon entering a geographic location. Statutory context supports this: other INA provisions distinguish actual and attempted entry; the statute elsewhere refers to arrivals near a land border; Congress amended §1158(a) in 1996 to replace "at a land border or port of entry" with "arrives in the United States"; and the presumption against extraterritoriality applies. The anti-surplusage canon does not overcome these factors, as the partial redundancy is explained by linkage to the expedited-removal process created in 1996. Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. forecloses treaty-based arguments.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

Concurring Opinion(s):

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. He agreed with the holding but noted additional problems with the decision below, including potential violations of 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) limiting classwide injunctive relief and possible infringement on the President's inherent authority to exclude aliens.

Dissenting Opinion(s):

Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She argued that §§1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1) require inspection and asylum processing for noncitizens in the process of arriving at ports of entry, regardless of whether they have crossed the border. The majority's interpretation renders statutory language superfluous, creates perverse incentives for illegal entry, and allows the Executive to evade mandatory duties.
Justice Jackson filed a separate dissenting opinion, emphasizing justiciability concerns given the rescission of the metering policy and the lack of a factual record.

Potential Significance:

The ruling clarifies that the INA's inspection and asylum-application provisions apply only to aliens who have crossed into the United States, limiting obligations at the border and confirming that aliens standing in Mexico are not entitled to those processes.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Key terms: Metering Policy, Asylum Processing, Border Arrival