Trump Secures Key Supreme Court Wins on Immigration

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered Donald Trump two significant victories, strengthening his administration’s hardline immigration agenda.

In one closely watched case, the justices allowed Trump to move forward with ending temporary protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals living in the United States, backing the president in a dispute with major consequences for immigrant communities.

In a separate decision, the Court also expanded Trump’s authority to restrict access for asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. border from Mexico.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted the Trump administration’s request to revive a disputed “metering” policy, which permits federal immigration officials to turn away asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The high court also ruled 6-3 that courts are barred from reviewing non-constitutional claims brought by Haitian and Syrian nationals, finding that the Temporary Protected Status statute limits judicial review.

The justices split along ideological lines in concluding that migrants seeking refuge do not legally “arrive” in the United States simply by trying, but failing, to set foot on U.S. soil. The decision clears the way for the administration to resume its so-called “turn back” policy.

Taken together, the rulings mark a major win for the Trump administration as it pushes ahead with stricter immigration enforcement, particularly policies aimed at asylum seekers.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer had pressed the Supreme Court to uphold the asylum measure, calling it a “critical tool for addressing border surges.”

Justices ruled in both cases along ideological lines, and, in a rare move, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded to the asylum case by reading aloud a summary of her dissent from the bench.

The Supreme Court in March agreed to review the Trump administration’s bid to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) status for more than 350,000 Haitian recipients and roughly 7,000 Syrian recipients living in the United States. 

But they declined at the time to grant the administration’s request to stay a lower court order that would allow them to immediately halt TPS designations for the migrants in question.

That detail is expected to put outsize weight on Thursday’s ruling, which could make hundreds of thousands of individuals in US suddenly eligible for deportation, including many who have been living and working in the country legally for years.

It also comes as the Trump administration has moved to unwind TPS designations for individuals from at least 13 countries since the start of his second term last January, and the high court ruling likely clears the way for Trump to undo TPS protections for other migrants living in the US under the program as well. 

TPS grants individuals from certain countries temporary legal status to live and work in the United States if they cannot return to their home countries due to natural disasters, armed conflicts, or other extraordinary circumstances.

Haiti was first granted TPS status in 2010, following a devastating earthquake that killed more than 200,000 individuals in the country and left some 1.5 million individuals in the country homeless.

Syria, for its part, was granted status in the throes of the country’s civil war. 

Thursday’s opinion day comes as the high court races to issue remaining decisions on major cases before the end of its term, which officially ends in June. 

Justices have yet to rule on some of the most consequential cases reviewed this term, including President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook and end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. 

Those cases are among the most closely watched this term — though the court appeared deeply skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments in both cases.

Thursday’s opinion day, however, is likely to be touted by the Trump administration as a major victory — and one that allows the President proceed with some of his get-tough immigration policies. 

The case ‘presents a straightforward question’: whether someone is considered having ‘arrived’ to the US must while still at the US-Mexico border, or when they are physically present in the United States, Justice Samuel Alito said, writing for the majority for Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the asylum case.

‘The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil,’ Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent — easily one of the most scathing that was penned this term. 

‘They may do so even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens who seek entrance into the country,’ Sotomayor continued. ‘Even if the port of entry has ample capacity to inspect that person, including an available asylum officer trained to process asylum applications. Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away.’

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.