Guy Goodwin-Gill: Wrong in 1993, Still Wrong in 2026: Al Otro Lado and Incompetence in the US Supreme Court
Guy Goodwin-Gill draws an interesting parallel between the Supreme Court's Haitian interdiction case (Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. (1993)) and the recent metering decision (Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (2026)):
"In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Coast Guard to stop Haitians on the high seas and return them to the country they had fled, despite international law prohibiting such conduct. In 2026, the Court allowed U.S. officials to stop asylum seekers at the southern border, forcing them to remain in Mexico, and to wait indefinitely for any claim to protection to be assessed.
Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention uses the French word non-refoulement when it prohibits return `in any manner whatsoever' of any person who may face persecution or other serious harm. In 1980, Congress passed the Refugee Act with the express purpose of conforming U.S. refugee law and practice with international law. Specifically, it included a procedure for a noncitizen `physically present in the United States or at a land border or port of entry,' irrespective of their status, `to apply for asylum,' thus ensuring that any claim would be assessed prior to any action on removal or deportation.
Although the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is necessarily about an international matter – the protection of those seeking refuge and asylum – the majority does not deal in any meaningful way with the law or the facts."
