WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that aliens cannot be considered as “arrived in” the United States for the purposes of federal immigration law if the U.S. turns them away before crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.  

Cully Stimson, acting director for The Heritage Foundation’s Institute of Constitutional Government, made the following statement:

“Both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 contain the phrase ‘arrives in the United States.’  The case presented a straightforward question: whether an illegal alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico arrives ‘in’ the United States when he is still ‘in’ Mexico?  

“The answer is clearly no, which is what the majority held in a common-sense opinion by Justice Alito. This opinion does not, as the dissent suggests, signal an end to meritorious asylum claims, nor does it change the fact that the United States takes in over one million legal residents per year.”  

Lora Ries, director of Heritage’s Border Security and Immigration Center, also noted the following:

“The case that Al Otro Lado brought is a clear demonstration that neither borders nor the meaning of words matters to the Left. They argued that the U.S. government cannot meter or control an orderly process at our land border. Additionally, they argued that U.S. CBP agents must inspect and process asylum aliens who are still in Mexico. The Supreme Court majority rejected both arguments and used the common-sense meaning of words.

“It is worth noting Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, in which he reprimands the district court for effectively granting the class-wide injunctive relief that Congress prohibited in the immigration statute and for providing relief that may have unconstitutionally infringed on President Trump’s inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.  

“Thomas called upon the Supreme Court to address in a future case ‘this apparent end-run around’ both the statute and the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, in which the Court interpreted the statutory jurisdictional bar to prohibit lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out specified statutory authorities.”