The Supreme Court ruled that migrants turned away before entering the United States are not entitled to seek asylum and allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two major immigration victories Thursday, issuing rulings that strengthen the government’s ability to limit asylum claims at the southern border and proceed with ending Temporary Protected Status for large groups of Haitian and Syrian nationals.
In one case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court ruled that migrants who are turned away at the border before entering the United States are not entitled to apply for asylum. In a second case, Mullin v. Doe, the justices held that Haitian and Syrian nationals with Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, cannot obtain judicial relief postponing termination of that status while they challenge the administration’s decision in court.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote both opinions.
The rulings give the administration additional legal room to reduce asylum claims and accelerate removals. The TPS ruling also clears the way for the administration to strip temporary protections from about 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, Alito focused on whether a migrant who reaches the U.S.-Mexico border but remains in Mexico can be considered to have “arrive[d] in” the United States for purposes of asylum law. The issue matters because federal law says a person who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum.
“This case presents a straightforward question: whether an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico ‘arrives in the United States’ when he or she is still in Mexico,” Alito wrote. “In the decision below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered ‘yes.’ That is wrong. 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.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent argued that the majority’s interpretation was too narrow and failed to account for other legal contexts in which migrants preparing to enter the United States are treated as arriving.
Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival praised the ruling.
“We had to go all the way to SCOTUS to vindicate the principle that an alien is not ‘in the United States’ until he is, in fact, in the United States. We have yet AGAIN been vindicated by the Supreme Court. This decision opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border,” Percival told Fox News Digital.
In Mullin v. Doe, the court addressed whether TPS recipients from Haiti and Syria could secure orders delaying termination of their status while litigation continues. Alito wrote that the TPS statute bars most judicial review of such claims unless they rest on constitutional grounds.
“In these cases, we consider whether respondents, who challenge the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for aliens from Syria and Haiti, are entitled to orders postponing the terminations during litigation,” Alito wrote. “We hold that they are not.”
The high court ruled 6-3 in the TPS case, with Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissenting.
Kagan, writing for the dissenting justices in the TPS case, argued that Haitian recipients may have a constitutional claim. She said there was evidence that the administration could have been motivated by “racial animus” when it moved to terminate protections for Haitians.
Kagan cited comments Trump made about Haitians before the 2024 election, including claims that they were eating pets in Ohio, as well as other remarks about migrants of African descent. She argued that if race played a role in ending TPS for Haitians, they could raise an equal protection claim that might allow lower courts to pause deportations during litigation.
Kagan also argued that the Department of Homeland Security failed to follow required procedures before revoking TPS for Haitians and Syrians.
Alito rejected the non-constitutional claims, saying the statute limits court review.
“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,” Alito wrote.
Alito also wrote that a racial explanation for the policy change was unlikely to be established, noting that the challengers themselves had suggested the administration may oppose TPS broadly as a matter of policy rather than because of any specific group.
Percival said the decision reaffirmed DHS authority.
“In our second Supreme Court win of the day, the Court vindicates DHS yet again. The T in TPS stands for TEMPORARY, yet many of these designations became de facto amnesty. This is a win for the rule of law and common sense,” Percival said.
The TPS dispute followed earlier lower-court action blocking DHS from ending protections for Haitians. A federal judge had previously halted the termination of TPS for about 350,000 Haitians shortly before the designation was set to expire in February.
The Biden administration had granted TPS to hundreds of thousands of Haitians and allowed them to obtain work permits. In 2024, the Biden administration extended TPS for Haitians and Syrians, allowing them to remain in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes had ruled earlier this year that then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem “does not have the law on her side” in blocking the Trump administration’s move to end the protections. Reyes also criticized Noem over an X post in which she used inflammatory language about Haitians and other migrants.
The Supreme Court’s decision lifted the lower-court block and allowed the administration to proceed with ending TPS for Haitians and Syrians. A post on X also highlighted the ruling after it was issued.
The two decisions give the administration new leverage in its broader immigration agenda. Conservatives have long criticized both TPS extensions and court rulings recognizing asylum-processing rights for migrants stopped outside U.S. ports of entry, arguing those policies encouraged abuse of the system.
By narrowing who may seek asylum at the border and allowing TPS terminations to proceed while litigation continues, the Supreme Court removed significant legal barriers to the administration’s effort to reduce asylum claims and increase removals.
Original article
Comments