The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that migrants touching but not crossing U.S. soil have no statutory asylum rights, reviving Trump's border turn-back policy.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 25, 2026, that a migrant who physically stands in Mexico and makes contact with but does not cross onto U.S. soil has not "arrived in the United States" within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act and therefore has no statutory right to apply for asylum and no entitlement to inspection by a Customs and Border Protection officer [1]. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, reverses a Ninth Circuit decision that had blocked the government from turning back migrants at ports of entry without processing their asylum claims [2].
The case, *Mullin v. Al Otro Lado*, reached the Court after the nonprofit immigration advocacy organization Al Otro Lado challenged the Department of Homeland Security's border turn-back policy as inconsistent with federal asylum statutes [2]. The Ninth Circuit had sided with Al Otro Lado, holding that physical presence at the border threshold was sufficient to trigger the statutory right to seek asylum. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and the June 25 ruling represents a definitive resolution of that statutory question at the federal level [1].
The decision clears the legal path for the Trump administration to reinstate and expand a "Remain in Mexico"-style turn-back regime at the southern border [1]. The ruling's practical scope is substantial: it forecloses the argument that brief physical contact with U.S. soil confers procedural rights, shifting the operative threshold to actual entry. DHS issued a statement the same day describing the ruling as a significant operational win, signaling that CBP will move quickly to align enforcement practices with the Court's holding [1]. The three dissenting justices, identified in reporting as the Court's liberal bloc, argued the majority's reading of "arrived in the United States" conflicts with the statutory text and prior agency interpretation [2].
Advocates for asylum seekers warned the ruling could affect hundreds of thousands of migrants annually who attempt to present themselves at ports of entry along the southern border [2]. Litigation is expected to continue on related questions, including whether the turn-back policy violates U.S. obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention's non-refoulement principle, a treaty claim the Court did not resolve in this decision. Al Otro Lado and allied organizations are expected to pursue those remaining claims in the lower courts, and further circuit splits on collateral questions could return the issue to the Court within the next several terms [2].