TLDR: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on June 25, 2026, that the federal government may legally turn back asylum seekers before they physically reach U.S. soil, reviving a controversial border policy known as “metering.” The ruling in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado is a major shift in how asylum law will be enforced at the southern border and could have ripple effects on business immigration and legal immigration pathways. If you or your company has employees navigating the U.S. immigration system right now, here is what you need to know.
The U.S. Immigration System Just Got More Complex
If you follow immigration news, you know that the past few years have felt like a relentless series of policy shifts, court battles, and last-minute reversals. Today, June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down one of its most consequential immigration rulings in recent memory.
In a 6–3 decision along ideological lines, the Court ruled in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that the federal government may legally turn back asylum seekers before they physically set foot on U.S. soil. The ruling revives a practice known as “metering”, a border enforcement strategy first used under President Obama, later formalized under President Trump’s first term, and now cleared for potential revival by the current administration.
What Is the “Metering” Policy, and How Did We Get Here?
A Quick History
For decades, U.S. law has required that anyone who arrives at an official port of entry and expresses a fear of persecution must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) made that promise explicit: if you arrive in the United States and ask for protection, the government must hear you.
“Metering” changed that in practice. Under this policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers stationed themselves just north of the international border line, physically blocking asylum seekers from stepping onto U.S. soil before they could be formally inspected. People were told to wait in Mexico, sometimes for months or years, in dangerous and squalid conditions. Thousands were subjected to violence, kidnapping, and worse while waiting for a chance to file a legal claim.
The policy was challenged in court beginning in 2017 in a lawsuit brought by Al Otro Lado, a binational immigrant rights organization, and a group of asylum seekers. Lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled the policy unlawful, and the Biden administration officially rescinded the metering memos in 2021.
But the Trump administration’s second term brought the issue back to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and clear the way for the policy’s potential revival.
What the Supreme Court Decided
Today, six conservative justices ruled in the administration’s favor. At the heart of the case was a deceptively simple question: what does it mean to “arrive in” the United States?
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito reasoned that a person does not “arrive in” a place before they physically enter it. Under that interpretation, asylum seekers who are stopped before crossing the border line have not yet “arrived in” the United States, and therefore cannot invoke the statutory right to apply for asylum.
The Court’s three liberal justices dissented sharply. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench, a step the justices reserve for cases where they want to express their strongest disagreements, arguing that the ruling undermines decades of settled law and U.S. treaty obligations.
What This Ruling Means in Practice
For Asylum Seekers
The most immediate impact of this ruling falls on individuals and families seeking refuge at the southern border. The decision does not automatically reinstate the metering policy, the administration would need to implement it, but it removes the primary legal obstacle that had been blocking its use. If the administration chooses to revive metering, individuals who approach U.S. ports of entry without first stepping onto U.S. soil could be turned back to Mexico without any formal asylum screening.
Nobody should have to navigate that kind of uncertainty alone. If you or someone you know has a pending asylum claim or is considering seeking protection in the United States, it is critical to speak with an experienced immigration attorney before taking any action. While Berardi Immigration Law does not practice asylum law, we are happy to help connect you with experienced attorneys who do.
For Businesses and Their Employees
If you are an employer with foreign national employees, or a company that relies on skilled international talent, you may be wondering: does this affect us?
While the ruling directly addresses asylum seekers at the southern border, its broader significance lies in what it signals about the current legal environment. Immigration policy is shifting rapidly under the current administration, from H-1B processing times to USCIS fee structures to enforcement priorities. Business immigration clients need to stay ahead of these changes, not react to them after the fact.
At Berardi Immigration Law, we prepare and file every case with precision so that when policy shifts happen, your employees are protected and your business continuity is secured.
For the Immigration System as a Whole
Today’s ruling is part of a broader pattern of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority granting the executive branch wider latitude over immigration enforcement. This year alone, the Court has weighed in on detention without bond policies, asylum processing procedures, and the legal rights of noncitizens in a variety of contexts.
The cumulative effect is a more uncertain, more complex, and more high-stakes immigration landscape than we have seen in decades. Getting it right the first time matters more now than ever.
Why Working With an Experienced Immigration Attorney Is More Important Than Ever
Here is the truth: immigration law was never simple. The INA is one of the most complex bodies of federal law in existence. Add in executive orders, agency guidance memos, circuit court splits, and now a Supreme Court decision that rewrites the interpretation of basic statutory language, and you have a system that is genuinely overwhelming, even for people who know it well.
That is exactly the problem we solve.
At Berardi Immigration Law, our team, led by Managing Partner Rosanna Berardi, a former INS Inspector and Trial Attorney, has spent decades preparing and filing immigration cases with precision and care. We understand the law, we track the policy changes, and we file cases that are built to hold up, no matter what the regulatory landscape looks like.
When you work with us, you go from a foreign national or a business facing an uncertain immigration situation to a U.S. immigration status holder with a clear, documented, legally sound path forward. That transformation is what we do, every day.
Immigration Is Too Important to Wing It
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado is a significant development in U.S. immigration law, one that reflects the current administration’s broad authority over border enforcement and signals more change ahead.
Whether you are an individual hoping to build a future in the United States or a company that depends on global talent, one thing is true: the stakes are too high to navigate this alone.
At Berardi Immigration Law, we have been here through every shift, every policy reversal, and every landmark ruling. We prepare and file your case for you with the expertise, care, and precision your situation demands. Ready to talk? Contact Berardi Immigration Law today.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Does today’s Supreme Court ruling mean the metering policy is back in effect immediately?
No. The ruling in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado removes the legal barrier that had been blocking the metering policy, but it does not automatically reinstate it. The Trump administration would need to take affirmative steps to implement the policy. We will monitor any formal guidance or executive action closely and update our clients accordingly.
Q: I am a foreign national currently in the U.S. on a work visa. Does this ruling affect me?
This ruling primarily concerns asylum seekers at the southern border, not individuals who are lawfully present in the United States on employment-based visas. However, the broader immigration enforcement climate is shifting, and it is always wise to ensure your status is current, your documents are in order, and your employer’s petitions are properly filed. If you have any concerns about your specific situation, we recommend scheduling a consultation with one of our attorneys.
Q: My company sponsors H-1B employees. Should we be worried about immigration policy changes affecting their status?
Business immigration, including H-1B, L-1, TN, O-1, and EB-based green card filings, operates under a separate legal framework from the asylum system addressed in today’s ruling. That said, we strongly recommend that employers with sponsored employees stay proactive: ensure petitions are filed well ahead of deadlines, maintain thorough documentation of foreign national employees’ roles and qualifications, and work closely with an experienced business immigration attorney. We are here to help.
Ready to have Berardi on your side?
Whether you’re a business looking to hire or a professional hoping to relocate, immigration law can be complicated. But you don’t have to do it alone. Put our experience to work for you.