Alito Accuses Sotomayor of Surprise Dissent in Asylum Case Affecting 350,000 Migrants
Updated
Updated · ms.now · Jun 29
Alito Accuses Sotomayor of Surprise Dissent in Asylum Case Affecting 350,000 Migrants
3 articles · Updated · ms.now · Jun 29
Summary
Thursday’s bench exchange turned unusually public after Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent in an asylum case and Samuel Alito complained he had been caught off guard.
The Supreme Court later said Sotomayor had notified Alito in advance and described his reaction as a misunderstanding, undercutting his accusation.
At issue was Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, where Alito’s majority said migrants blocked at the border had not “arrived in” the United States and therefore could be denied access to seek asylum.
Sotomayor argued that reading would let officers physically prevent even legitimate asylum claims, invoking the 1939 MS St. Louis, whose more than 900 Jewish refugees were turned away and over 250 later died in the Holocaust.
The clash came as Alito also wrote a separate immigration ruling clearing the way to revoke Temporary Protected Status for roughly 350,000 Haitians and Syrians, with possible effects on more than 1 million people from 11 additional countries.
How does the Supreme Court's new definition of 'arrives in' reshape decades of U.S. asylum law?
What unintended consequences could the Court's border ruling create for regional migration patterns and border communities?
With thousands of healthcare workers losing status, how will the TPS ruling impact America's medical system?
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: Supreme Court Ruling Reshapes U.S. Asylum Access and Border Management
Overview
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, immediately reshaping the landscape for asylum seekers at the U.S. border. The ruling centered on the practice of 'metering,' which limits how many asylum seekers can present themselves at official ports of entry. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, rejected concerns about encouraging illegal entry and clarified that metering only delays, rather than denies, the right to apply for asylum. This decision legitimizes the government's use of metering, leading to significant and immediate effects on border policy and the experiences of thousands seeking refuge.