Supreme Court Hands Trump Sweeping Victories on Asylum and Deportation Protections

Two Landmark Rulings Reshape the Immigration Landscape

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two seismic immigration law decisions on Thursday, June 25, ruling 6-3 in the Trump administration's favor in each case. Together, the rulings dramatically expand the federal government's power over who can seek refuge in America — both at the border and inside the country. The decisions were among the most consequential immigration rulings in years, and their effects will be felt almost immediately by hundreds of thousands of people.

The rulings represent an "expansion of the administration's larger plan — to try to both limit protection at the border and increase the deportable population in the interior," according to Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. For immigrant communities across the United States, the day marked a stark turning point.

Asylum Seekers Turned Away Before Crossing the Border

In *Mullin v. Al Otro Lado*, the court upheld a policy allowing U.S. border agents to block immigrants on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border from seeking asylum on U.S. soil. This practice, known as "metering," limits the number of asylum cases officials must process each day at ports of entry. The policy began under former President Barack Obama but was formalized during Trump's first term, then ended during former President Joe Biden's administration.

During previous periods of metering at the border, thousands of asylum seekers were forced to wait weeks or months in squalid refugee camps along Mexico's northern border and were often preyed on by cartels. Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a point of delivering her dissenting opinion from the bench, warning that "more people will die" because of this ruling. Justice Alito, who authored the majority opinion, pushed back, describing the policy as "orderly and humane."

Deportation Protections Stripped for Hundreds of Thousands

The dispute in the second case arose out of the Department of Homeland Security's decision to end Temporary Protected Status for more than 6,000 Syrians and 350,000 Haitians. Lower court judges had postponed the terminations of the programs, but the Supreme Court reversed those rulings, saying in a 6-3 decision that immigrants from Syria and Haiti are not entitled to judicial orders postponing the terminations of their temporary deportation protections.

The TPS program, in place since 1990, provides humanitarian relief to people from countries reeling from war, natural disasters, or other catastrophes. Recipients have legal status in the U.S. and can apply for work authorization for up to 18 months, subject to extensions. Critics of the ruling pointed out a troubling contradiction: the State Department currently tells Americans not to travel to either Haiti or Syria, with both countries on its "do not travel" list. As for Syria, the department says that "no part of Syria is safe from violence."

The legal team representing Haitian nationals warned that the decision would "directly result in thousands of innocent people dying violent, needless deaths." Healthcare groups have flagged that thousands of Haitian nurses, home health aides, and other healthcare workers are expected to lose their jobs. The White House, meanwhile, celebrated both decisions. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the ruling "affirmed what President Trump has always maintained: temporary protected status is, by definition, temporary."

A Broader Ripple Effect on Immigration Policy

The ruling could also boost the administration's efforts to remove similar protections from people from other countries as part of President Donald Trump's hard-line immigration policy. As of now, nearly 300,000 people still retain TPS that has yet to expire or be terminated by the Trump administration, including almost 200,000 Salvadorans who have had TPS for over 25 years and 50,000 Ukrainians who have had TPS since the outbreak of the war — all now at further risk of losing their protections.

In both cases, the majority of justices focused on the "plain language" of the relevant immigration law, affirming the court's long-held deference to the White House on immigration. Those decisions "are not subject to judicial review," wrote Justice Alito in the majority opinion. That finding may prove to be the most lasting consequence of all — not just for Haitians and Syrians, but for any future administration seeking to reshape who America opens its doors to, and who it turns away.