The U.S. Supreme Court upheld two restrictive immigration policies Thursday, delivering victories for the Trump administration and affirming its broad power to restrict immigration both at the border and in the interior of the country. 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 border from seeking asylum; in Mullin v. Doe, the court upheld the administration’s decision to revoke temporary protected status (TPS) from hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Haitian immigrants.
What changed
The high court ruled 6-3 in both cases, with the justices dividing along ideological lines.
On asylum metering: The justices overturned a lower court order blocking the practice that limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day, first under the Obama administration and then expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term. “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote. The Court adopted the government’s argument that people stopped by authorities haven’t arrived in the country, so immigration agents don’t have to let them apply.
Metering was first used under President Barack Obama when large numbers of Haitians appeared at the main crossing to San Diego from Tijuana, Mexico, was expanded to all border crossings from Mexico during Trump’s first term, and ended in 2020 when the government introduced greater restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, with President Joe Biden formally rescinding it in 2021.
On TPS: The court upheld the administration’s decision to revoke a humanitarian policy known as temporary protected status (TPS) from hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Haitian immigrants who now may face deportation to their unstable homelands.
Why it matters
For asylum practitioners, this ruling removes the injunction that had blocked metering. The policy isn’t in place now, though authorities have imposed other restrictions on asylum seekers. However, the DHS praised the court’s decision, and in court documents, government lawyers had said the Trump administration wanted metering as an available policy option. Practitioners should monitor whether and when the administration re-activates metering at ports of entry—if implemented, it will directly affect asylum interview timing, wait times, and screening protocols.
For TPS holders from Syria and Haiti, the ruling removes legal barriers to revocation. Practitioners representing TPS clients should now assume deportation risk is heightened and begin exploring alternative relief options (stays of removal, pending I-485 cases, asylum withholding, CAT claims) immediately.
In both cases, the majority of justices focused on the “plain language” of the relevant immigration law, while affirming the court’s long-held deference to the White House on immigration and national security matters. This reasoning may forecast the Court’s stance in other Trump-era immigration cases pending this term.
Way forward
-
For asylum practitioners: Update your border interview protocols and client intake scripts. Advise clients arriving at ports of entry that metering may be re-implemented, potentially extending wait times. Monitor DHS announcements for reinstatement guidance.
-
For TPS clients: Immediately assess whether your clients have other relief options in the pipeline (I-485, pending asylum cases, VAWA, U visa). File any time-sensitive motions or applications before TPS is formally terminated for the affected groups.
-
For all practitioners: Review the Court’s full opinions in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado and Mullin v. Doe (available on supremecourt.gov) for the precise legal holdings, which may affect related cases you’re handling or briefing.
-
Track implementation: Follow USCIS and DHS announcements for policy directives implementing metering or TPS revocation. The ruling opens the door; agency guidance will follow.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The information presented is accurate as of the publication date but may change without notice. Immigration policy and law are subject to frequent revision. Consult a qualified immigration attorney licensed in your jurisdiction to discuss how these rulings affect your specific circumstances and to verify the current state of the law before relying on any guidance in this article. Links to external government websites are for reference only and should not be treated as an endorsement of their content.