What the Supreme Court rulings mean for America’s immigrants and the nation
The Supreme Court issued two decisions Thursday that will collectively allow the Trump administration to push forward the president’s plan to transform the asylum system and expel immigrants who come from some of the world’s most troubled countries.
The decisions affect both immigrants who have been living in the United States for years and those who are still seeking entry.
In one ruling, the court determined that the Trump administration can cancel humanitarian relief for Haitians and Syrians. The ruling could put all 1.3 million beneficiaries of temporary protected status at risk of deportation. Many have already had their protection from deportation canceled, but have legal challenges pending in court that will now be impacted by the decision.
The other decision centered around a policy known as the “metering,” which allows border agents to block migrants from entering the United States to apply for asylum. The practice permits officials to restrict the number of people stepping foot in the United States at a port of entry and was first employed during the second Obama administration. It is one of several measures that the Trump administration has at its disposal to prevent people from entering and applying for asylum.
The rulings will have practical impacts for scores of migrants, their families, business owners and communities. They also underscore how Trump is using executive power to dramatically change some of the most bedrock principles of the nation’s immigration system.
“For a long time the U.S. was a place that welcomed refugees into this country,” said Rogelio Sáenz, professor of sociology and demography at the University of Texas at San Antonio. “And now you have the closing of the doors that is taking place.”
Here is a look at who is impacted, how and what it means for the president’s ongoing deportation campaign.
TPS holders are at risk of deportation The ruling on temporary protected status is widely expected to impact immigrants from all 17 countries that had the protection when Trump took office last year. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has sought to eliminate protections for 13 of those nations, including countries that the State Department considers highly dangerous.
TPS is reserved for people from designated countries that are in the midst of armed conflict, natural disaster or other crises. The protections allow immigrants in the United States to work legally for up to 18 months. Applicants are required to pay fees, pass a background check and cannot have serious criminal records.
DHS had previously extended work authorizations for Syrian and Haitian TPS holders until July 1. The agency did not respond to inquiries for details on what will happen next. But the benefits will likely terminate after that date, said Sharvari Dalal-Dheini, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. TPS holders from other nations, like Venezuela and Somalia, who have separate legal challenges will likely see their status terminated in the near future.
“The Supreme Court ruling basically gave the administration a ‘carte blanche’ to terminate temporary protected status,” Dalal-Dheini said.
Not everyone can be immediately removed Trump has long signaled that he wants to deport many of immigrants previously protected through TPS. He falsely claimed during his presidential campaign that Haitian residents in Springfield, Ohio, were killing and eating their neighbors’ pets—and said that immigrants were “poisoning the blood” of the country.
DHS has not had a major urban immigration enforcement surge since this winter in Minneapolis, where two U.S. citizens were shot and killed, and has faced political pressure to soften its tactics. Polls show a majority of Americans believe the deportation campaign has gone too far, and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has vowed to take a quieter approach.
Nonetheless, the Trump administration has simultaneously promised to continue the president’s deportation campaign and the number of immigrants in detention remains high.
In the aftermath of Thursday’s rulings, Stephen Miller, White House adviser and the architect of much of Trump’s immigration policy, said that he expected people who lose TPS status to be deported.
“If you no longer have status in this country, then you’re supposed to be deported,” he said.
Still, many TPS holders may not yet have a final order of removal, and do have some time to either contest their deportation, or seek another means of remaining in the United States.
TPS holders can generally apply for asylum within one year from losing their status, if they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin, said Austin Rose, managing attorney for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. However, they could still be subject to detention, and many asylum applications are being swiftly denied.
Dalal-Dheini said many TPS recipients may choose to voluntarily leave back to their homelands, where they could face conditions that remain dire, and where new disasters may be unfolding. In Venezuela, for example, two major earthquakes on Wednesday night toppled buildings and left at least 164 people dead.
A rise in deportation proceedings by the thousands is also likely to further overwhelm a court system plagued by a severe backlog.
Asylum seekers will face more obstacles The decision permitting the Trump administration to stop migrants from entering the United States to apply for asylum stems from a policy that began in 2016 when Barack Obama was president.
Obama employed it at a small section of the border near San Diego, and Trump expanded it before the border was nearly completely shut down during the pandemic. In November 2021, the Biden administration formally ended the metering policy.
All migrants who reach U.S. soil have the right to request asylum, regardless of how they entered. That policy is at the heart of much of the conflict over immigration in the United States. Trump and immigration restrictionists contend the asylum system is abused by new arrivals who likely do not qualify for the protection but are allowed to remain in the United States for years while waiting for their cases to be heard. Proponents believe the United States should continue to honor its historical obligation to offer shelter to people who can prove they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
The ruling permitting metering offers the Trump administration one more means of restricting asylum, though it has already employed several others that are broader in scope.
Trump declared an “invasion” at the border upon taking office and barred entry to asylum seekers for public safety, health and economic reasons “until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.”
A federal appeals court ruled in April that Trump’s “invasion” declaration was illegal, effectively clearing the way to reopen the United States to migrants seeking asylum, though the government is challenging the decision.
“I don’t think this is going to change anything right now,” said Stephanie Leutert, director the Central America and Mexico Policy Initiative at the Strauss Center. “But in case something else gets rolled back, it gives them another option to continue to block access to asylum.”
Miller was blunt in stating what he believes the ruling means.
“America’s doors are closed, fully, to asylum seekers,” he said. He called all asylum applications at the border “fake,” denying that they ever face persecution based on race, religion or ethnicity.
Legal pathways to remain in the U.S. are narrowing The high court’s decisions will effectively make it more difficult for many immigrants to remain in the United States legally, or to seek entry with the hopes of eventually obtaining a legal status through asylum.
The rulings come at a time when the Trump administration, overall, is moving to limit migration from certain groups to the United States. The refugee program has been closed to everyone except White South Africans. Green-card applicants are being subject to new scrutiny when attempting to adjust their status. And there are other pending decisions before the high court, including whether to green-light the Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship.
“All of these are blows to legal pathways in the United States,” Dalal-Dheini said.
Advocates warn that people who are unable to seek asylum at the ports along the border may make more desperate and dangerous attempts to enter undetected in remote areas of the border.
“We saw for all the years that metering was in effect that people came in between ports of entry because they had no other choice,” said Melissa Crow, the director of litigation at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, a co-counsel in the Supreme Court case. She described migrants taking perilous swims across the Rio Grande or walking through the hot desert.
“The result of this ruling is that more people will die trying to come here to seek protection.”
Sáenz, the University of Texas at San Antonio professor, said that between the interior deportations and the asylum restrictions, the Trump administration appears to be attempting to demographically change the country to what it looked like 75 years ago, when the White population was over 80 percent.
“This is a way of undoing the demographic and political power that has been coming with people of color,” he said.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
