The Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, ruling that migrants stopped at the international boundary cannot apply for asylum. The decision specifies that migrants deemed inadmissible must generally be removed without further hearing through expedited removal.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion for the Court. In his opinion, he stated that a border officer first determines if a migrant is barred from entering the United States based on national security, foreign-policy concerns, or the individual's health or criminal activity. Anyone deemed inadmissible must then be subjected to expedited removal, he wrote.

Since 1996, border officers have had the option of quickly removing some migrants from the United States using expedited removal, a procedure that does not involve immigration courts. This process applies to individuals who are excludable because they misrepresented a fact to enter the U.S. or arrived at the border without a valid passport or visa. However, expedited removal does not apply to anyone who expresses fear for their safety.

Jonathan Weinberg, a Distinguished Professor of Law at Wayne State University, addressed the Court's decision. "Justice Alito's statement would take away from people seeking to enter the country — and some people already in it — their only opportunity to have their case heard by a neutral adjudicator," Weinberg said. Weinberg added, "Instead, it would allow border officials to eject anyone seeking to enter the country, and impose a five-year bar on their returning, on the basis of their own mere say-so untethered in law."

The ruling in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado addresses provisions within the Immigration and Nationality Act concerning individuals arriving at a U.S. land border crossing. Government officials interview all arrivals, search databases, and allow most to proceed after a brief conversation and database check. Border officers can also detain migrants briefly and release them into the United States using parole, or transfer them to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Why It Matters

The Supreme Court's decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado redefines the process for migrants seeking asylum at U.S. land borders. By allowing for expedited removal without an immigration court hearing, the ruling impacts the legal avenues available to individuals seeking entry into the United States. Immigration law typically designates immigration courts as central to legal processes for those believed to have violated immigration law, with judges expected to act as neutral decision-makers. Migrants who are not quickly expelled can appeal such decisions, but the Court's ruling limits this recourse in cases of inadmissibility at the border.