Supreme Court Upholds Trump Border Policies

Summary

The Supreme Court recently upheld key Trump-era immigration policies in two 6-3 decisions, with Republican appointees largely siding against Democrat appointees. The first ruling, Mullin v. Ortiz, clarifies that individuals are not considered to have "arrived in the United States" for asylum purposes if they are still in Mexico and turned away at the border. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, stated that being on the other side of the border means one has not entered the country, and therefore the US has no legal duty to process their asylum claim. Justice Thomas, in a concurrence, added that Congress has the power to regulate who enters but is not constitutionally required to admit a specific number of people. The second decision concerned the Trump administration's decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from Haiti and Syria. The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of such termination decisions. While some plaintiffs argued the terminations were racially motivated, the Court suggested the administration's opposition to the TPS program itself provided a race-neutral explanation. Justice Thomas's concurrence argued that TPS is a privilege, not a right, and that equal protection principles do not apply to immigration statuses for aliens. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, with Sotomayor referencing historical humanitarian crises and Kagan suggesting the TPS termination for Haitians was based on racial animus.