Supreme Court Hands Trump Administration Historic Immigration Victories on Asylum and TPS

Supreme Court Hands Trump Administration Historic Immigration Victories on Asylum and TPS

In a pair of seismic, back-to-back 6-3 rulings, the Supreme Court of the United States has dramatically expanded federal executive authority over immigration and border control.¹ Siding with the Trump administration, the conservative majority greenlit the physical "metering" of asylum seekers at the southern border and cleared the way for the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for tens of thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals. Together, these decisions represent a massive consolidation of executive power, severely curtailing judicial oversight of immigration enforcement.

The Physical "Turnback" of Asylum Seekers Upheld

In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (No. 25-5), decided on June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government's policy of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they cross the U.S.-Mexico border—commonly known as "metering"—does not violate the Refugee Act of 1980 or the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that a person "arrives in" the United States only when they physically enter U.S. territory, not when they are blocked at its threshold:

"In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person 'arrives in' a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place. The context in which the phrase 'arrives in the United States' is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary meaning ... A person arrives in a destination only when he enters it, and that conclusion does not change because someone or something blocks entry."

In a passionate dissent read from the bench, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that the decision would have fatal consequences and create "perverse incentives" for illegal entry:

"The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not ... if the refugees on the M. S. St. Louis were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto U.S. soil."

Unreviewable Authority to Terminate Temporary Protected Status

In the second ruling, Mullin v. Doe (No. 25-1083), also decided on June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to end deportation protections and work authorizations for citizens of Haiti and Syria. Siding again with the administration, the 6-3 majority ruled that the federal statute creating the TPS program generally bars courts from reviewing determinations by the Secretary of Homeland Security (then Kristi Noem) to terminate TPS designations.

Justice Alito, writing for the majority, emphasized the sweeping nature of the statutory judicial-review bar:

"Under either of these definitions, courts generally cannot review Noem’s decisions to terminate the TPS designations for Syria and Haiti ... the TPS judicial-review bar expressly restricts review ... If the final agency action is unreviewable, then so too are subsidiary determinations."

Alito also rejected the challengers' constitutional equal protection claims that the terminations were racially motivated, despite highly controversial statements about Haitians by President Trump and Noem. Alito wrote that while the statements contain "heated language," none was "overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on reasons having nothing to do with race."

In her dissent, Justice Kagan argued that the majority's decision leaves vulnerable populations facing "devastating, and indeed life-threatening, injury" and called the racial motivations behind the Haitian termination "plain to see":

"The evidence that the Haiti TPS beneficiaries have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print. But those statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country."

What the Pattern Signals

These rulings mark a monumental victory for the Trump administration's highly restrictive immigration agenda. By stripping federal courts of the power to review TPS terminations and declaring that asylum protections do not apply to those physically blocked at the border, the Supreme Court has insulated executive immigration policies from legal challenges. This signals an era of unchecked executive authority over border management and deportation, effectively dismantling decades-old legal frameworks designed to protect refugees and displaced persons.