Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶117

The majority also points to several other statutory provisions that, it argues, more clearly refer to noncitizens who are not yet on U. S. soil and contends that Congress would have used that or similar language if it intended to enact respondents’ interpretation. Ante, at 9–10 (citing, among others, a provision that authorizes immigration officers to arrest those “attempting to enter” the country, §1357(a)(2), and another provision that authorizes the Attorney General to deputize state or local law enforcement to respond to an “influx” of noncitizens “arriving off the coast . . . or near a land border,” §1103(a)(10)). True, Congress could have used one of these alternative formulations instead of the “arrives in the United States” clause in §§1225(a)(1) and 1158(a)(1), and the question before the Court might have been easier if it had done so. Congress’s choice “to use certain…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.