A raft of administration measures concerning the immigration and refugee system have wound their way through the courts since last year, with the government most often prevailing. The Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 term delivered several major rulings that reshape immigration practice. While the administration scored landmark victories on temporary protected status and asylum processing, it suffered a rare defeat on birthright citizenship that practitioners need to understand.
What changed
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Thursday for President Donald Trump’s administration to strip hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants of a humanitarian status that protects them from deportation, giving another boost to his hardline approach toward immigration. The justices in a 6-3 ruling overturned decisions by federal judges in New York and Washington, D.C., that had halted the administration’s actions terminating Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for more than 350,000 people from Haiti and 6,100 from Syria. Critically, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on TPS by essentially ruling that courts have no business deciding the issue in the first place. Legal challenges against the administration over revoking TPS for multiple countries will likely be dismissed because of the court’s decision, so the administration will be able to proceed with its plans.
As the administration began a more expansive deportation campaign compared to previous Democratic and Republican administrations, the Supreme Court made it easier for the government to send deportees to countries not of their origin, a result contrary to the principle of non-refoulement that past administrations had respected. The Court also cleared the way for “metering”—a controversial immigration policy. The change would allow officials at the southern border to curb the number of asylum claims they must process by turning some migrants away before they touch US soil.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said foreigners who are in the U.S. temporarily and who want to apply to become lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, must return home and apply there, except in “extraordinary circumstances.” It was viewed as a dramatic change, as it is estimated that hundreds of thousands apply for green cards from within the U.S. However, the agency appears to have backtracked after an outcry, saying determinations will be made on a “case-by-case basis.”
In a rare setback, the court on Tuesday invalidated the president’s executive order that sought to overturn birthright citizenship, the principle that nearly all babies born in the U.S. are automatically citizens. In Trump v. Barbara, a majority of six justices said the president’s order, which would have limited citizenship for babies of those in the country illegally or temporarily, was unlawful.
Why it matters
For practitioners working with TPS clients—particularly those from Haiti and Syria—the Supreme Court’s decision eliminates a critical layer of judicial review. Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision was a rare legal setback from the justices for Trump, who otherwise has radically transformed the immigration and asylum stance of the U.S. The ruling means ongoing lawsuits challenging TPS terminations will likely fail on jurisdictional grounds, and hundreds of thousands of TPS holders will lose work authorization and deportation protection absent Congressional intervention or a policy reversal.
The metering policy complicates asylum practice at the Southwest Border. With courts unable to review TPS terminations, practitioners should expect limited judicial relief on related humanitarian matters.
The green card policy shift, while partially retreated, signals continued administrative pressure on I-485 adjustment of status. The “case-by-case” language creates uncertainty; practitioners with clients in banned or restricted countries face particular risk that applicants may be forced to consular process abroad, where visa availability may be limited or processing paused.
The birthright citizenship decision is binding precedent: children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary visa holders remain U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment. This prevents a significant category of removal exposure for affected families, but do not rely on it to shield clients from other deportation grounds.
Way forward
-
TPS clients: Immediately advise existing and potential TPS holders of the termination timeline and explore all lawful status alternatives—marriage-based family petitions, employment sponsorship, asylum affirmative applications (if still possible), and VAWA or U visa eligibility. Backlog claims for stay of removal where available.
-
Green card applicants: For clients abroad or in the U.S. from restricted countries, determine whether USCIS will permit adjustment in the U.S. or require consular processing. Request a USCIS decision on “extraordinary circumstances” before advising departure. Monitor country-specific visa availability before advising a client to go home to apply.
-
Asylum seekers: Understand that metering at the border may prevent asylum affirmative interviews. Consider defensive asylum claims if a client is placed in removal proceedings, and research whether the client qualifies for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture protection.
-
Birthright citizenship: Document U.S. birth of all minor children of your clients; ensure they receive birth certificates. This ruling protects them from deportation based solely on parents’ status.
Disclaimer
This analysis is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. We are a software and public education company, not a law firm. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney before making decisions based on this information. Immigration policy changes frequently and without notice; verify all citations against the primary sources linked above and current agency guidance before advising clients.