Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-5_86qd.pdf
Case background
The Immigration and Nationality Act governs the process by which an alien who
“arrives in the United States” is inspected by border officials, is deemed an
applicant for admission, and may apply for asylum. In the spring of 2016,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection began experiencing a surge of aliens
seeking admission at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, with numbers
sometimes far exceeding safe and secure processing capacity. In November 2016,
the Department of Homeland Security responded by adopting a policy of
“metering” the number of arriving aliens whom CBP would inspect each day and
allow to apply for asylum; to enforce it, officials stood on the U.S. side of
the border and prevented aliens from entering beyond the number the port could
adequately process. In 2017, asylum seekers and the immigration-advocacy
organization Al Otro Lado brought a putative class action against the
Government, arguing that CBP’s enforcement of the metering policy unlawfully
withheld inspection and asylum processing from aliens who arrive at the border
and seek to enter the United States. The District Court certified a class and
granted summary judgment for it, and a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit
affirmed in relevant part, holding that an alien “arrives in the United
States” — and thus must be inspected and may apply for asylum — when the alien,
while standing on the Mexico side of the border, encounters a United States
official at the border.
Questions Presented
(1) The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A), 1225(a)(1) and (3). The question presented is whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of those provisions.
Holding
An alien standing in Mexico does not “arrive in the United States” by
attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien “arrives in
the United States” only when he crosses the border. The INA thus neither
entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an
immigration officer to inspect him. The phrase “arrives in the United States”
carries its ordinary meaning — a person arrives in a place only when he enters
it — and that conclusion does not change because someone or something blocks
entry. Statutory context, and the presumption against extraterritoriality,
both confirm that reading.
The Court
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice
Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting
opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed a
dissenting opinion.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, written by Justice Alito.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Alito. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-5_86qd.pdf
Case background
The Immigration and Nationality Act governs the process by which an alien who
“arrives in the United States” is inspected by border officials, is deemed an
applicant for admission, and may apply for asylum. In the spring of 2016,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection began experiencing a surge of aliens
seeking admission at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, with numbers
sometimes far exceeding safe and secure processing capacity. In November 2016,
the Department of Homeland Security responded by adopting a policy of
“metering” the number of arriving aliens whom CBP would inspect each day and
allow to apply for asylum; to enforce it, officials stood on the U.S. side of
the border and prevented aliens from entering beyond the number the port could
adequately process. In 2017, asylum seekers and the immigration-advocacy
organization Al Otro Lado brought a putative class action against the
Government, arguing that CBP’s enforcement of the metering policy unlawfully
withheld inspection and asylum processing from aliens who arrive at the border
and seek to enter the United States. The District Court certified a class and
granted summary judgment for it, and a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit
affirmed in relevant part, holding that an alien “arrives in the United
States” — and thus must be inspected and may apply for asylum — when the alien,
while standing on the Mexico side of the border, encounters a United States
official at the border.
Questions Presented
(1) The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A), 1225(a)(1) and (3). The question presented is whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of those provisions.
Holding
An alien standing in Mexico does not “arrive in the United States” by
attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien “arrives in
the United States” only when he crosses the border. The INA thus neither
entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an
immigration officer to inspect him. The phrase “arrives in the United States”
carries its ordinary meaning — a person arrives in a place only when he enters
it — and that conclusion does not change because someone or something blocks
entry. Statutory context, and the presumption against extraterritoriality,
both confirm that reading.
The Court
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice
Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting
opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed a
dissenting opinion.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, written by Justice Alito.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Alito. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.