2-0: Today’s SCOTUS Decisions

The Supreme Court today cleared the way for the government to turn back migrants before they reach the border, and to terminate “Temporary” Protected Status designations that have shielded hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.

These are big wins! The two rulings will help future administrations prevent asylum abuse before it happens, and wind down backdoor-amnesty TPS designations that currently cover more than a dozen countries and 1 million inadmissible aliens living in the U.S.

VICTORY #1 – More Control Over Asylum

Mullin v. Al Otro Lado 

The Court ruled 6-3 that the government may legally turn back asylum seekers who are attempting to reach a port of entry before they hit U.S. soil, greenlighting a now-rescinded immigration policy that the Trump administration wants the right to potentially revive.

Biden Ended An Effective Obama Policy

In 2016, amid a surge of asylum applications, the Obama Administration adopted a policy of limiting (or “metering”) the number of migrants Customs and Border Protection would inspect each day. The Trump Administration formalized the practice. As a result, migrants would often face wait times in Mexico of weeks or months. This policy discouraged fraudulent claims and provided the government more time to adequately inspect and orderly process asylum seekers.

The Biden Administration rescinded the metering policy in 2021 and directed the Office of Field Operations to “increase capacity to process undocumented noncitizens [and] further accelerate ongoing steps to leverage technological and processing efficiencies to streamline [Point of Entry] processing.” This was one of several fatal decisions made by the Biden Administration. Border encounters soared — and by 2024, nearly half of all encounters occurred at these points of entry, compared to just 15% in 2021.

Overwhelmed Asylum System Needs Limits

The asylum system is overwhelmed with a backlog of over 3 million cases. Denial rates shot up over the course of the Biden Administration, and today, roughly 4 out of every 5 asylum claims are denied. Nearly two-thirds of removal orders in FY2025 were issued in absentia — people who claimed asylum, didn’t show up for their hearing, and simply disappeared. The asylum system has been gamed as means to get released into the country. Metering the flow of new applications is necessary to give the system time to catch up. 

This ruling gives the Executive Branch the green light to restore the policy to protect our borders from a surge of so-called asylum seekers.

The 1-Yard Line Is Not the End Zone

The Supreme Court overruled a Ninth-Circuit opinion that an alien “arrives in the United States” the moment he or she encounters a U.S. official, even if the alien is standing on the Mexico side of the border.

Writing for the Supreme Court’s majority, Justice Alito refuted that logic:

“A running back does not arrive in the end zone when he is tackled at the 1-yard line by the defense. The guest does not arrive in the house when the homeowner locks the door right before the guest tries to open it.”

The majority opinion did not assess the value of the metering policy itself, merely the government’s authority to implement it. They also noted that metering “does not permanently bar any alien from arriving and applying for asylum. It merely delays entry…” The Justices made it clear, in this ruling, that an alien standing in Mexico is not entitled to our asylum process.

VICTORY #2 – TEMPORARY MEANS TEMPORARY

Mullin v. Doe

The Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump Administration could terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Syria and Haiti, which would require those nationals to return to their home countries.

Although the court left the door open for future challenges, the decision should help clear the way for the Executive Branch to wind down these and additional TPS designations, which have long offered de facto permanent residence.

Putting “Temporary” Back in TPS

The Immigration Act of 1990 gave the Executive Branch authority to designate foreign nationals a “Temporary Protected Status,” including work permits, when conditions in the home country temporarily prevent them from returning.

In theory, Temporary Protected Status is a short-term measure to allow beneficiaries to remain and work in the United States until conditions in their home country allow them to return. Proponents of the program emphasized that the immigration benefits would be temporary, and beneficiaries would ultimately have to return home.

In practice, the program grew into an open-ended amnesty program for over a million people, many of whom have been beneficiaries for decades. During the Biden Administration, the number of Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries tripled from roughly 400,000 to approximately 1.3 million. Haiti alone expanded from the original 60,000 in 2010 to 350,000 by the end of Biden’s term.

As Justice Alito wrote for the majority:

“Although designed to afford ‘temporary’ relief, TPS designations in practice have often lasted for decades. For example, the Secretary designated Somalia in 1991, and that designation remains in effect 35 years later.”

President Trump has tried to end some of these designations but has been repeatedly blocked by the courts despite the law stating that “there is no judicial review” of any determination “with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation,” (8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(5)(A)).

“No Judicial Review” Means What You Think It Means

The key holding from the decision is this: 

“The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. It allows ‘no judicial review of any determination . . . with respect to the . . . termination’ of a TPS designation. 8 U. S. C. §1254a(b)(5)(A). The term ‘determination’ can be used to describe either an individual decision or the whole process leading to a final decision, and under either understanding of the term, §1254a(b)(5)(A) squarely bars all of respondents’ non-constitutional claims.”

In a rebuke of the lower courts, the majority added:

“This important principle ensures that challengers cannot avoid a judicial-review bar by creative pleading.”

Challengers Undermined Their Own Case

The challengers asserted that the terminations for Haiti and Syria were driven by racial animus, but they undermined their own case with the majority. From the syllabus:

“Ironically, respondents themselves offer a race-neutral explanation for the Government’s action: namely, that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program as it has been implemented in the past.”

Up Next: Birthright Citizenship

The Supreme Court did not issue a decision in Trump v. Barbara, the case that will determine whether the Trump Administration can limit birthright citizenship via executive order. That could come as soon as next week or as late as early July.