On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark 6-3 decisions that fundamentally reshape immigration law. The Court ruled in Mullin v. Doe to overturn lower court decisions blocking the Trump administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 4,000 Syrians, and in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado endorsed a policy dating back to the last months of the Obama administration which permitted border officials to turn away asylum seekers arriving by land to ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. Both decisions eliminate major legal barriers to enforcement actions that will directly affect your practice.
What changed
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that an alien standing in Mexico cannot be considered to have “arrived in the United States” by attempting and then failing to set foot on American soil. An alien is only considered to have successfully arrived when they cross the border. As a result, an alien standing in Mexico is not entitled to apply for asylum, nor is an immigration officer required to inspect them. The court also cleared the way for the Trump administration to revive a controversial policy that aims to curb the number of migrants that officials at the southern border must process to determine whether they have a right to seek safe haven in the US.
In Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump Administration can cancel the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for the countries of Syria and Haiti. More significantly, by sharply limiting judicial oversight, it makes it significantly harder to challenge future TPS terminations for other countries. 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. 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, federal law squarely bars all of respondents’ non-constitutional claims.
Why it matters
The two decisions cement a dramatic shift in immigration law that affects your day-to-day practice in several ways:
Asylum representation at the border. The court ruled that people can’t claim asylum if they present themselves to U.S. officials while still standing on Mexican soil. The controversial asylum policy known as “metering” that the Supreme Court said was lawful has not been in effect in recent years. But the administration told the court earlier this year that it needed clarity on whether it could, in theory, reimplement the policy should conditions at the Southern border worsen. This means that clients physically waiting at a port of entry before crossing the border have no statutory right to asylum application or inspection—they must first step onto U.S. soil. Advise asylum seekers accordingly and expect border officials to rely on this holding to process far fewer claims.
TPS terminations and removal exposure. The Mullin v. Doe ruling overturns lower court decisions blocking the Trump administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 4,000 Syrians. The Supreme Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of nonconstitutional challenges to the DHS secretary’s termination of a country’s TPS designation. When the terminations take effect, Haitian and Syrian employees’ TPS-based employment authorization and protection from removal will end. TPS holders in your practice can no longer rely on judicial review to challenge the merits of a termination determination.
Reduced judicial check on DHS discretion. The decision removes key legal barriers to deportations and sharply limits the role courts can play in reviewing immigration policy. Lower courts can no longer block or postpone TPS terminations on Administrative Procedure Act grounds for future designations.
Way forward
-
For asylum-seeking clients: If your client is waiting at a Mexican port of entry or has been turned back by CBP, clarify that metering is now legally permissible and they have no statutory right to inspection unless they are physically on U.S. soil. Reassess whether entry at a port of entry or through other means is strategically advisable under current conditions.
-
For TPS holders facing termination: Immediately determine whether your client’s TPS designation is affected (Haiti and Syria terminations are now in effect). Explore alternative bases for relief—adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, U visa, T visa, asylum (if eligible as a national of a different country)—since judicial review of the termination itself is foreclosed.
-
For litigation strategy: Cease investing resources in APA or constitutional challenges to TPS terminations on their merits. Focus only on statutory or constitutional claims that do not require DHS merits review (e.g., Equal Protection challenges based on discriminatory intent, due process in individual removal proceedings, not TPS termination).
-
For employers with TPS-eligible staff: Prepare I-9 reverification procedures for Haitian and Syrian nationals. Consult DHS guidance on timing and compliant handling of work authorization terminations as TPS statuses expire.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software platform, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and subject to rapid change by statute, regulation, and judicial decision. Always verify your understanding against the primary sources—including the Supreme Court opinions themselves and current DHS guidance—and consult with a licensed immigration attorney before advising clients or making filing decisions. Policy can change without notice.