Supreme Court Delivers Decisive Wins for Trump on Immigration

In a decisive move on Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered two notable triumphs to Donald Trump, aligning with his stringent immigration policies. This marks a significant moment for his administration’s agenda.

The rulings empowered Trump to withdraw temporary protections that hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals have been relying on while residing in the United States. This decision stands as a pivotal resolution in one of the term’s most critical and highly scrutinized immigration cases.

In addition to this, the Supreme Court Justices granted Trump further power to restrict asylum seekers entering the United States from Mexico.

The court’s 6-3 decision permitted the reinstatement of a controversial policy known as ‘metering.’ This policy allows immigration officials at the US-Mexico border the ability to turn away individuals seeking asylum, thereby reinforcing the administration’s hardline stance.

Additionally, the high court ruled 6-3 that it cannot review the non-constitutional claims of Haitian and Syrian nationals, citing that the Temporary Protected Status statute precludes judicial review, thus further cementing the administration’s authority in this arena.

Justices ruled along ideological lines that migrants seeking refuge do not ‘arrive’ in the country by ‘attempting, and failing, to step foot’ in the United States – clearing the way for the administration to restart its so-called ‘turn back’ policy. 

Combined, the rulings represent a significant victory for the Trump administration as it seeks to crack down on the President’s hardline immigration enforcement agenda, including for asylum seekers. 

US Solicitor General D John Sauer had urged the high court to enforce the asylum policy, describing it as 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.