Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

In 2016, a port of entry along the United States-Mexico border experienced a surge of aliens seeking entry. Border officials (defendants) lacked capacity to inspect everyone, and growing crowds of uninspected individuals created safety risks. However, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (1) required that border officials inspect any alien who “arrives in the United States” and (2) allowed any alien “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum. The border officials interpreted “arrives in” to mean physical entry into the country. The officials concluded that if they stopped an alien before the alien physically crossed the border, the INA did not require them to inspect the alien or to respond to asylum requests. Officials implemented a metering policy. Under this policy, if the port was low on capacity, officers would stand in Mexico and prevent some aliens from physically crossing into the United States. Border officials later expanded the metering policy to other ports, allegedly using it even when sufficient capacity existed. Immigrant-rights group Al Otro Lado and 13 asylum seekers (plaintiffs) filed a class action, arguing that metering violated the INA. The district court agreed, holding that the INA required officials to inspect and process asylum seekers who were in the process of arriving, even if they had not physically crossed the border. The government rescinded the policy but appealed, asserting its right to resume metering if desired. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that an alien “arrives in the United States” upon encountering a United States official at the border. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.