Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶141

The majority responds by claiming that the metering policy “merely delayed entry . . . as a way of improving a situation that both interfered with the proper conduct of inspection and created unsanitary, inhumane, and sometimes dangerous conditions at ports of entry.” Ante, at 18. As a factual matter, that is untrue. See supra, at 4–5. Under the metering policy, noncitizens were often turned away “regardless of the port’s actual capacity and capability,” App. 397, 408, without being given future appointments. Border officials also failed to take “any steps to keep track of who was being turned away or otherwise allo[w] them to open asylum applications.” 138 F. 4th, at 1122. That is why the Ninth Circuit held that the metering policy constituted withholding of its mandatory duties, not mere “dela[y],” which is permissible so long as the delay is not “unreasonabl[e].” 5 U. S. C. §706(1).

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