The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump two major immigration victories on Thursday morning, both having to do with his administration’s efforts to reduce asylum claims. The decisions establish new law on asylum processing at the border and judicial review of temporary protected status (TPS) revocations—both of which reshape how immigration practitioners advise clients in these categories.
What changed
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court held that migrants who are turned away at the border before entering the United States are not entitled to apply for asylum. The decision reverses lower court rulings that had required the government to process certain asylum seekers turned away at ports of entry.
In Mullin v. Doe, the court ruled that Haitian and Syrian nationals in the United States with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) could not receive judicial relief postponing the revocation of their status while they challenge the Trump administration’s efforts to revoke it in court. The law establishing TPS explicitly blocks recipients from legal relief unless their claims have a constitutional basis.
Both decisions were 6–3, with the conservative majority authored by Justice Samuel Alito.
Why it matters
Asylum implications: The rulings mark a shift in the legal fight over who can seek protection in the United States, giving the Trump administration a new avenue to limit asylum claims at the border. If a noncitizen is intercepted before crossing the border—or remains outside the port of entry—they may no longer file an asylum application. Practitioners representing clients in expedited removal proceedings or pre-arrival counseling must now assume that physical presence inside the U.S. territory is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
TPS implications: The ruling gives the Trump administration more leeway to move forward with ending temporary protections for certain migrants already in the country. TPS recipients who challenge a revocation notice will have sharply limited grounds for injunctive relief (stay of removal); constitutional claims remain available, but statutory or equitable arguments are foreclosed. This accelerates TPS termination timelines and removes a key litigation tool practitioners previously used to delay or block deportations.
Scope: The court upheld the right of the administration to strip more than 356,000 Syrian and Haitian immigrants of temporary protection status. Practitioners working with any TPS derivative or principal holder in these or future designated countries should anticipate heightened revocation risk and shorter windows for appeals or litigation.
Way forward
-
Asylum cases: Do not file affirmative asylum applications for clients who remain outside the territorial U.S.; instead explore port-of-entry humanitarian screening or in-country processing through consular channels if available. For clients already in removal proceedings, challenge the asylum bar on constitutional (not statutory) grounds only.
-
TPS cases: Immediately audit clients’ TPS status and revocation notice timelines. File any pending appeals or constitutional challenges before the revocation effective date, as post-termination judicial relief is extremely limited. Consider whether adjustment of status (I-485) or other relief channels remain open.
-
Litigation planning: Do not rely on stay-of-removal motions in TPS termination cases unless grounded in constitutional equal protection or due process claims. Standard equitable factors (hardship, family ties, community ties) will not suffice.
-
Case law: Read both majority opinions for plain language on the “physical presence” standard (Al Otro Lado) and statutory construction of TPS judicial review (Doe). Dissenting opinions by Justice Sotomayor may signal future legislative responses or circuit-level interpretive disputes.
Disclaimer
This summary is provided for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. The information does not create an attorney–client relationship and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a licensed immigration attorney. Immigration law and policy change without notice; you must verify all claims against the primary source document and applicable regulations before advising clients or making filing decisions. Consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your client’s situation.