Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Petitioners v. Al Otro Lado, a California Corporation, et al.

The case was about the federal government's "metering" policy at border ports of entry, where officials limited how many people could come forward for inspection and asylum processing each day. The Supreme Court said that a noncitizen stopped on the Mexican side of the border has not yet "arrive[d] in the United States," so the Immigration and Nationality Act's inspection and asylum rules did not apply at that point.

The Court issued a decision, but the prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

The decision gives the federal government more room to control processing before a person physically enters the United States. For example, people waiting on the Mexican side of a port of entry cannot rely on those INA protections until they have actually reached the United States under the Court's reading.

Lower courts must apply the Supreme Court's reading of "arrive[] in the United States" when this dispute returns to them. Federal agencies can continue shaping border processing rules around that interpretation, while migrants and advocacy groups will have to press any remaining claims under other legal theories if available.

The dispute was whether someone stopped on the Mexican side of the border has already "arrive[d] in the United States" under the INA. The Court said no.

It means people waiting on the Mexican side cannot invoke the INA's inspection and asylum provisions yet. That gives border officials more control over when processing begins.

Lower courts must handle the case using the Supreme Court's interpretation. Agencies and affected groups will adjust policies, enforcement, and litigation to fit that rule.