The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and the Trump administration regarding when asylum-seekers officially "arrive" in the U.S.
In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the Court held that aliens seeking asylum do not “arrive in the United States” until they physically cross the border into the country and therefore are not entitled to inspection by border officials until they have entered onto U.S. soil.
'An alien "arrives in the United States" only when he crosses the border.'
The case stems from the federal government’s “metering” policy — first adopted in 2016 amid a surge of migrants at the southern border — that limited the number of aliens whom Customs and Border Patrol agents would inspect each day for asylum. When a port of entry reached capacity, officials physically prevented additional aliens from entering until capacity became available again.
In 2017, asylum-seekers and Al Otro Lado, an immigration advocacy organization, brought forward a class-action lawsuit arguing that the federal government was unlawfully denying aliens access to asylum procedures.
The federal district court in Southern California granted summary judgment in favor of the noncitizens and declared the government’s policy unlawful.
The metering policy was then discontinued in November 2021, though the second Trump administration has attempted to revive it.
A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that an alien “arrives in the United States” when said alien — even while standing on the Mexico side of the border — encounters a U.S. official and thus must be inspected for asylum claims.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito reversed the lower court’s ruling. The court held that the meaning of “arrives in the United States” requires physically entering the country. Therefore, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, an alien standing on the Mexico side of the border is not entitled to inspection by a U.S. official.
“We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] 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,” Alito wrote.
The court highlighted the text of other INA provisions and subsequent amendments to the statute to indicate that Congress intended asylum and inspection rights to apply only after an alien enters the country.
“That Congress amended §1158(a) in IIRIRA to replace ‘at a land border or port of entry’ with ‘arrives in the United States’ suggests that we should not read those phrases — which carry different ordinary meanings — to have the same meaning.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that Congress intended border officials to inspect and process all aliens who present themselves at ports of entry, regardless of whether they have physically stepped into the U.S. The dissent contended that the majority’s decision “ignores the statutory context and history” of the INA and weakens the asylum protections Congress created for people fleeing persecution.
"The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil.”
Sotomayor added, "The Court's illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: 'in.'"
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Sudanese asylum-seeker arrested for the horrific attempted beheading that took place in Northern Ireland on Monday night appeared in court on Wednesday, where he declined to enter a plea.
In addition to being identified, the African has been slapped with additional criminal charges after the brutal attack he is accused of committing prompted a fiery night of rioting in Belfast as well as demands for transparency and a withdrawal from the EU Migration Pact from rightist lawmakers.
'We will be going after them.'
Now that the liberal establishment has pivoted from feigning horror over the attempted beheading to expressing outrage over the backlash, police are threatening to arrest online influencers who raised the alarm about the incident.
A black male was caught on camera sitting atop a bloodied white male in the middle of a north Belfast street, shouting something in a foreign tongue, then carving with a knife into the victim's face and neck.
The attack was interrupted by a Good Samaritan armed with a wooden hurl stick who gave the attacker a good thwacking. Another two men rushed in to help — one attempting to pull the victim to safety and the other giving a few well-placed kicks to the aggressor's head.
The attacker, who was initially identified by a police as Somali but later confirmed to be a Sudanese national, was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.
RELATED: Sudanese national suspect attempts to behead UK citizen — but police beg public not to share images
The victim, who has been identified as Stephen Ogilvie and a British citizen, was taken to the hospital in serious condition with grievous injuries to his face, neck, and back.
Gavin Robinson, a member of the British Parliament for East Belfast, stated on Tuesday that the Sudanese suspect was living in the U.K. under a five-year visa.
Police subsequently confirmed that the suspect, 30-year-old Hadi Alodid, entered Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland in 2023, applied for asylum, and was granted leave to remain in the country until 2028.
The Telegraph reported that the suspect had "used a loophole" in the British asylum system — traveling from Sudan to Paris and then to Dublin, before taking a bus to Belfast and then claiming asylum.
In addition to the original charge of attempted murder, Alodid has been charged with possessing a knife in a public space and threatening to kill a woman who works as a radiographer for the National Health Service.
Alodid appeared at Laganside magistrate's court on Wednesday, where he communicated via an Arabic interpreter. The stabbing suspect — who allegedly left Ogilvie with no left eye, a damaged right eye, and deep cuts on his face and back — refused legal representation and declined to respond to the charges.
Alodid was denied bail at the urging of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Police told the court that the African's release posed a threat of further offenses and a flight risk and could lead to "significant public disorder," reported the BBC.
The suspect's next court date is July 8.
The PSNI implored the general public on Tuesday not to share footage of the horrific attack, but the British public evidently had other ideas.
To the great chagrin not only of police but of those leftist lawmakers who expressed concerns over the inevitable political fallout, the video — yet another damning reminder of the isles' disastrous immigration policies and failed dogma of multiculturalism — went viral with the help of remigration activist Tommy Robinson and others.
Belfast was subsequently rocked by protests and, on Tuesday evening, riots in which homes, cars, and a bus were torched.
Some of the hundreds of black-clad young men who roamed the streets of the capital city on Tuesday reportedly shouted, "Foreigners out!" and pelted asylum-seeker housing with rocks.
'F**k 'em.'
Assistant Chief Constable Ryan Henderson of the PSNI said in a statement, "Sporadic pockets of disorder have broken out in a number of locations across Northern Ireland this evening, including incidents in which a number of vehicles have been set on fire."
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and various other lawmakers condemned the riots — in many cases more forcefully than they condemned the attempted beheading.
"The scenes in Belfast last night were shocking and completely unacceptable," Starmer stated on Wednesday morning. "There is no justification for the violence and disorder that we saw threatening our communities, nor for those who encouraged it, online or elsewhere. It is clear that people were targeted last night because of their background and I will not tolerate it."
Police have arrested several alleged rioters and are threatening to arrest online influencers over their provocative commentary regarding the attempted beheading.
"It’s very easy, these days especially, to look online and be persuaded, by people who know nothing about Northern Ireland, know nothing about the communities in Northern Ireland, know nothing about the history of Northern Ireland, to take actions that they otherwise would not take," said PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher. "Stop looking at this nonsense. Stop listening to these idiots. We will be going after them for the incitement that they’ve been doing."
"I'm not talking about individuals in this press conference, but people will know who were online last night and inciting this behavior. They will know what they were doing. We will be going after them," added Boutcher.
Despite this latest threat of a crackdown over online speech, Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson, and Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe have not rounded their critiques or softened their rhetoric.
Robinson, for instance, wrote, "Stop importing rapists, murderers, and sex pests from savage third world countries who put young girls [sic] lives at risk. Once you have advocated for that, and the removal of unwanted illegal migrants from communities who never asked for or wanted them, then you can take the high road. Until then, keep your mouth shut."
Lowe wrote early Wednesday, "Millions must go," and "the Belfast victim has lost his left eye and has severe damage to his right eye. Hacked at the neck, with his eyes gouged. Men who inflict this brutal evil on others do not deserve to live."
Musk shared a post rejecting the calls for calm, then tweeted, "F**k 'em."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!The United States suffered a costly and deadly "invasion" at its southern border during the Biden administration.
Over the course of Joe Biden's tenure as president, U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded roughly 11 million border encounters with illegal aliens and other inadmissible migrants — encounters that in many cases ended with the release of border jumpers into the homeland.
The Trump administration has, however, turned things around.
'These bans affected half of all legal immigrants coming from abroad.'
Whereas, for instance, in fiscal year 2024 there were over 2.9 million border encounters nationwide, last year there was a total of 691,906 encounters. If the pattern shaping up over the past several months continues until September, this year will see far fewer. After all, the number of border encounters from October through March was 531,301 in fiscal year 2025 but only 182,585 during the same stretch this fiscal year.
More important than the decline in border apprehensions is the total drop in releases. On Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security announced U.S. Border Patrol's 11th consecutive month of zero releases at the southern border.
The Trump administration has, apparently, also succeeded in greatly reducing the number of legal migrants entering the nation.
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, endeavored in a new report to take the wind out of President Donald Trump's sails on the issue of immigration control, not only claiming that Trump's success in curbing illegal alien entries was a gift from the previous administration, but complaining that Trump has significantly reduced legal migration.
RELATED: Oracle files for thousands of H-1B visas amid mass layoffs: 'Today is your last working day'
While framing the reductions in legal immigration in negative terms, Bier — a libertarian who previously attempted to blame Trump for the immigration crisis and aided the effort to thwart the president's executive order requiring Border Patrol to immediately send any border crosser packing — has unwittingly provided strong indications that the president has delivered a result that 55% of Americans said they wanted the year he was re-elected.
According to the Cato Institute report, the number of monthly southwest border legal entries by asylum seekers dropped 99.9% from December 2024 to February 2025, which Bier credited to the Trump administration's elimination of the CBP One scheduling app and restrictions on asylum.
The leading countries of origin for refugees admitted in the final year of the Biden administration were Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria, and Venezuela.
The Trump administration also reduced the number of refugees admitted into the country. There were, for instance, 96,635 admissions from Feb. 2024 to Jan. 2025, but only 2,157 admissions from Feb. 2025 to Jan. 2026. The president has capped admissions in fiscal year 2026 at 7,500 refugees.
Bier's frustration with what he has dubbed the "most anti-legal immigrant administration in American history" wasn't limited to the curbs on asylum seekers and refugees.
In light of the administration's denial of immigrant visas and visa issuances to foreigners from scores of countries and the State Department's suspension of the Diversity Visa lottery, Bier projected — absent the relevant data on visa issuances since September 2025 — that immigrant visas for legal permanent residents have fallen by roughly half.
RELATED: 'H-1B workers ONLY': DOJ punishes company Sara Gonzales exposed for illegal hiring practices
"These bans affected half of all legal immigrants coming from abroad, including half of all spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, based on 2024 immigrant visa processing," Bier wrote. "However, it’s possible some of this flow could be replaced with immigrants from other countries, but that did not happen when President Trump enacted a narrower ban on certain categories of immigrants from 19 countries in June."
In addition to sparing the taxpayer from shouldering the cost of more welfare dependents and American labor from foreign competition, Bier faulted the administration for bringing down the number of international student visas.
A Pew Research Center poll conducted in September revealed sizable American support for restricting the number of foreign college students from various countries, particularly the countries that have historically sent the most students to U.S. universities.
Fifty percent of respondents said they supported restricting the number of Chinese students; 44%, Indian students; 42%, Nigerian students; 41%, South Korean students; and 34%, Canadian students.
Comparing issuances in summer 2024 versus in summer 2025 — the "peak months when students typically get visas" — Bier concluded that student visas had fallen by 40%. He projected that the number of issuances in 2026 will be a tiny fraction of 2025's anticipated total of international student visas.
Bier also had some good news for critics of the much-abused H-1B visa program, which enables U.S.-based employers to temporarily hire foreign workers into specialized positions that American citizens supposedly can't do.
The libertarian estimated that in the wake of Trump's September executive order adding a $100,000 fee to H-1B visa applications, H-1B visa issuances had likely dropped "by a quarter."
After trying sympathy — "these cuts to legal immigration are harming U.S. citizens seeking to reunite with their spouses, fiancés, children, and other relatives" — Bier's libertarian reflexes kicked in, such that he emphasized that "they are also undermining U.S. prosperity and increasing the U.S. deficit."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The U.S. Supreme Court is busily dishing out its final opinions before heading into America’s 250th birthday. But it’s also announcing which cases it’ll be hearing in its upcoming fall term. As part of its Monday order list, the high court revealed that it will be taking up and holding arguments in a series of […]
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Thursday in a dispute over an immigration policy critical to combating migrant surges at America’s southern border. The decision was 6-3, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the dissent. Known as Mullin v. Alt Otro Lado, the case centers around […]
If President Trump is still trying to weed out government workers who are threatening to undermine his agenda from within, he might want to take a look at one of his immigration judges named Holly D’Andrea. In an interview with The New York Times (repackaged this week for The Daily podcast), D’Andrea said something that’s […]
While it might feel sometimes like we're swirling in a toilet bowl, just remember, there are good things happening.
A new report from the Cato Institute shows Trump has not only delivered on illegal immigration — he’s delivering on legal immigration too. “The cut to legal entries was 2.5 times as large” as the cut to illegal entries, David J. Bier wrote in his report, noting that illegal entries have also fallen under Trump. […]
'If it's not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing ... that we're looking for where we say, "Ah, now that person we can say 'arrives in' the United States?"' asked Justice Barrett.
'The Biden administration ended policies and practices that could have prevented these tragedies.'
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com