Story Highlights
- In Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled 6-3 that federal courts generally cannot review DHS decisions to terminate Temporary Protected Status
- In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court ruled 6-3 that migrants in Mexico have not “arrived in” the U.S. and cannot apply for asylum from there
- The rulings threaten protections for roughly 1.3 million TPS holders, including about 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians facing imminent termination
- Justice Sotomayor took the rare step of reading her dissent aloud from the bench
What Happened
The Supreme Court issued a pair of immigration decisions Thursday that together represent some of the most consequential rulings of the term on the scope of executive power over immigration enforcement. In Mullin v. Doe, the Court held that a provision of the Temporary Protected Status statute limiting legal challenges to TPS “determinations” prevents federal courts from hearing virtually any lawsuit challenging a Department of Homeland Security secretary’s decision to terminate the status, even if that decision failed to follow legally required procedures. The Court did not decide whether the prior administration secretary had actually followed the law in ending TPS for Haiti and Syria; it ruled instead that courts have no jurisdiction to even ask the question.
In the companion case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s protections for those who “arrive in” the United States do not extend to people who are still standing on Mexican soil at a port of entry. The decision overturns a Ninth Circuit ruling that had required border officers to inspect and process asylum claims from migrants who reached American ports of entry but had not yet physically crossed onto U.S. territory. The ruling clears the way for the revival of a practice known as “metering,” in which border officials limit the number of asylum seekers processed each day, a policy the Department of Homeland Security’s own inspector general previously found was sometimes used even when processing capacity was available.
Both opinions were written by Justice Samuel Alito over sharp dissents from the Court’s three liberal justices. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented in both cases and took the symbolic step of reading her dissent aloud from the bench, a rare gesture reserved for cases justices consider especially consequential. Court observers noted unusual tension in the courtroom as Alito responded publicly to Sotomayor’s remarks, a departure from typical judicial decorum.
The rulings arrived alongside a third immigration decision issued earlier in the week, Blanche v. Lau, in which the Court held 6-3 that border officers do not need “clear and convincing evidence” before treating a returning lawful permanent resident as a new applicant for admission rather than someone already lawfully present, making it easier for the government to scrutinize and potentially remove longtime green card holders with past criminal issues. DHS General Counsel James Percival praised all three decisions as “victories for the rule of law and common sense,” while White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called the TPS ruling a “tremendous win” that affirmed the program “was never intended to be a pathway to permanent status.”
Why It Matters
These rulings represent a significant contraction of judicial oversight over executive branch immigration decisions, a development with implications well beyond the specific populations affected. The TPS ruling in particular establishes that even an unlawful decision by a DHS secretary to terminate humanitarian protections could be entirely insulated from court review going forward, a precedent that immigration law scholars warn removes a critical check on executive discretion regardless of which administration occupies the White House in the future. The principle that government action must be subject to some form of judicial accountability is a cornerstone of American constitutional government, and these decisions test the outer limits of how far Congress can statutorily wall off entire categories of executive decisions from that scrutiny.
For the roughly 1.3 million people currently covered by Temporary Protected Status across 17 countries, the ruling creates immediate and severe practical consequences. Work authorizations for Haitian and Syrian TPS holders, previously extended through July 1, will likely lapse on that date, and TPS holders from other countries with pending litigation, including Venezuela and Somalia, are now expected to see their protections terminated in short order as well. Many affected individuals have lived and worked legally in the United States for years, in some cases decades, building families, careers, and communities that now face sudden disruption.
The asylum-metering decision raises distinct due process concerns, as it permits the government to turn away individuals fleeing potential persecution before they ever reach a point where federal protections attach, regardless of the merits of their underlying claims. Legal scholars note that the ruling effectively allows the executive branch to draw the line of constitutional protection at the literal physical boundary of the country, a formalist approach that critics argue ignores the practical reality that many asylum seekers have no safe means of reaching that boundary in the first place.
Economic and Global Context
The economic stakes of the TPS ruling are substantial. TPS holders are authorized to work legally in the United States, and many have become integrated into sectors including healthcare, construction, and food service that rely heavily on this labor pool. The sudden loss of work authorization for hundreds of thousands of individuals could create immediate disruptions for employers in affected industries, particularly in regions with large Haitian and Syrian communities, while also straining state and local social services as affected families lose income and legal status simultaneously.
The ruling’s timing intersects awkwardly with global events. The Supreme Court’s TPS decision came as twin earthquakes struck Venezuela, killing more than 160 people and injuring hundreds more, a reminder that TPS designations have historically responded to exactly this kind of humanitarian catastrophe abroad. Haiti’s TPS designation, for instance, originated after a devastating 2010 earthquake. The ruling’s removal of judicial review over termination decisions means future humanitarian crises abroad may carry less weight in determining whether protections are extended or withdrawn, shifting that calculus entirely to executive discretion.
Internationally, the rulings are likely to draw scrutiny from human rights organizations and foreign governments whose nationals are directly affected, particularly as the metering decision narrows the practical avenues through which individuals fleeing violence or persecution can seek protection in the United States. Allied nations managing their own migration pressures may also study the rulings closely as a model, or cautionary example, for how far executive discretion over asylum processing can be expanded through domestic court rulings.
Implications
In the immediate term, DHS is expected to move quickly to finalize TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria once existing work authorizations lapse on July 1, with Venezuela and Somalia likely to follow as their separate legal challenges are resolved in light of this ruling. Immigration attorneys note that many affected TPS holders do not yet have final removal orders and retain some limited options to contest deportation or pursue alternative forms of relief, though the window to do so is narrowing.
For Congress, the rulings increase pressure on lawmakers to consider permanent legislative solutions for TPS holders, since the judiciary has now made clear it will not serve as a backstop against executive termination decisions. Absent congressional action, advocates warn that hundreds of thousands of individuals face the loss of legal status and work authorization with little recourse.
For businesses and communities reliant on TPS-holder labor, the coming months will likely bring workforce disruptions requiring contingency planning. For civil liberties and immigration advocates, the rulings will likely accelerate efforts to pursue narrower constitutional due-process claims, distinct from the statutory claims foreclosed by these decisions, as one of the few remaining avenues for challenging individual removal actions going forward.
Sources
“Supreme Court gives Trump major wins on two immigration cases”
