In two immigration rulings, the Supreme Court held that the law permits the government to turn away asylum-seekers on the Mexico side of the U.S. border and end temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians living in the United States. These decisions fundamentally reshape how immigration practitioners advise clients on asylum claims, border litigation, and TPS challenges.
What changed
The Court ruled that an alien standing in Mexico does not “arrive in the United States” by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country, and that an alien “arrives in the United States” only when he crosses the border. The INA thus neither entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him. This reverses the Ninth Circuit’s prior holding and clears the way for the Trump administration to reinstate the “metering” policy, which limits the number of asylum-seekers allowed to enter ports of entry each day.
In the second ruling, the high court upheld the Trump administration’s decision to revoke TPS for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians living and working in the U.S., ruling that courts cannot second-guess the decisions of the DHS secretary on TPS, and that those decisions “are not subject to judicial review.” The court also dismissed a constitutional claim from the Haitian immigrants, who argued the rescission of their protected status was motivated by race.
Why it matters
The asylum ruling eliminates a key protection that practitioners have relied on: the obligation for border officials to inspect and process asylum applicants who present themselves at a port of entry. These court wins raise enforcement questions around whether the government will focus on targeted arrests of those losing their TPS, and how officials may try to “meter” immigrants at border ports of entry when relatively few people are arriving now.
For TPS clients, the decision is catastrophic. The court’s decision means that the President can end the protected status of Haitians and Syrians without the possibility of judicial review, and migrants living legally in the U.S. from those countries will likely revert to illegal status, meaning they will lose their jobs and face deportation, with many of them forced to leave their American-born children behind.
You can no longer argue in federal court that TPS termination violates the Administrative Procedure Act, that procedures were not followed, or that conditions in the home country are unsafe. The statute bars judicial review entirely.
Way forward
-
For asylum clients: If representing someone without prior U.S. entry, counsel on the legal effect of “metering”—asylum seekers physically stopped at the border may be turned away indefinitely until port capacity allows processing. Advise on alternative legal status (visa applications, family-based petitions, humanitarian programs) or cross-border legal consultation.
-
For TPS holders: Move immediately. Practitioners should discuss applications for adjustment of status (if eligible), consular processing, cancellation of removal, U visa/T visa eligibility, or other emergency relief now, before TPS termination finality. Status can flip from lawful to deportable without judicial safeguards.
-
Monitor agency guidance: DHS has indicated interest in resuming metering; await formal policy announcements and operational directives from CBP.
-
Legislative advocacy: Consider engagement with Congressional allies; the House passed a TPS extension bill for Haitians, though a veto is likely.
Disclaimer
This analysis summarizes two Supreme Court decisions as reported in publicly available sources, but is not legal advice. The opinions linked above are the authoritative text; practitioners must review them in full. Consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific situation. Immigration policy and court precedent can change, and procedures vary by jurisdiction. Verify all information against the primary court opinions and current agency guidance.