Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶56

Last, respondents argue that acceptance of the interpretation we adopt could cause drastic harm because the Government at some time in the future might prevent all potential arriving asylum applicants from ever reaching the point where an application could be fled. For present purposes, it suffces to say that the rescinded metering policy was never anything like that imagined future policy. The Government's policy merely delayed entry by some aliens 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. If the Government ever adopts the sort of policy that respondents fear, we are confdent it would be quickly challenged.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.