Original Date Announced

The DHS Office of Inspector General released a report confirming that CBP took steps to limit the processing of asylum-seekers at ports of entry, including instructing seven ports of entry to stop processing virtually all undocumented migrants (known as "metering" or "queue management"). OIG found this action contravened the long-standing CBP practice of processing all migrants at "Class A" ports of entry. OIG made three recommendations, but CBP refused to concur with one. [ID #1119]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2021.09.02 Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas Summary Judgement Order

On September 2, 2021, the US District Court for the Southern District of California issued a summary judgment order in Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas declaring metering policies that turn back asylum seekers at the border unlawful. The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on remedies by October 1, 2021.

**Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2022.08.05 Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas Remedies Opinion

On August 5, 2022, the US District Court for the Southern District of California issued a remedies opinion in Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas concluding that turning back asylum seekers constitutes an unlawful withholding of Defendants’ mandatory ministerial inspection and referral duties under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and § 1225 in violation of both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court held that Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez (Supreme Court, 2022) precluded it from entering an injunction against the metering policy, but granted class-wide declaratory relief.

**Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.06.25 Opinion - Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

In a 6-3 decision pertaining to the metering policy described in this entry, the Supreme Court held that a noncitizen does not "arrive[] in the United States" for purposes of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1) until the noncitizen has crossed the border. As a result, the Court concluded that individuals prevented from crossing the "limit line" while approaching a port of entry have not “arrive[d]” in the United States within the meaning of the statute, and therefore statutory asylum inspection obligations are not triggered. The majority did not address the OIG's conclusions described above but the dissent by Justice Sotomayor did. Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5 (U.S. June 25, 2026).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**