3 Supreme Court Immigration Decisions You Need to Know About

TLDR: The U.S. Supreme Court issued three major immigration rulings this week with real consequences for immigrants across the country.

• Asylum Metering: The Court ruled that asylum seekers waiting outside a U.S. port of entry have not legally “arrived” under the Immigration and Nationality Act — giving the federal government broad authority to control who can even reach the point of applying for asylum.
• TPS for Haiti & Syria: The Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with terminating Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian nationals. TPS holders are not facing immediate deportation, but once protections expire, those without another lawful status may become removable. Advocates are concerned this ruling opens the door to future TPS terminations for other designated countries.
• Green Card Holders & Criminal Charges (Blanche v. Lau): The Court ruled that CBP can treat a returning lawful permanent resident as an applicant for admission based on pending criminal charges alone — a conviction is not required. Green card holders with any criminal history or pending charges should consult an immigration attorney before traveling internationally.

Two additional decisions are still pending: one on birthright citizenship and others involving the administration’s broader immigration enforcement authority. Stay tuned for updates.

Transcript:

Supreme Court Immigration Decisions This Week: What They Mean for Immigrants

Hi, everyone. Gabriella here, and this has been one of the biggest weeks for immigration at the US Supreme Court in years. So far this week, the court has issued 3 major immigration decisions, and each one has the potential to affect 1000, if not hundreds of thousands of people. Today, we’re going to walk through each of those decisions, explain what the court actually held, and most importantly, discuss what they mean in the real world.

We’re also still waiting on 2 additional immigration decisions that could be just as significant: the birthright citizenship case and several cases involving the administration’s enforcement authority. As soon as those decisions are released, I’ll cover them here on this channel. But for today, let’s dive into what has already happened.

Well, decision number one, asylum metering. The first case involves what is commonly referred to as asylum metering. If you’ve followed immigration over the past several years, you’ve probably heard that term before. Metering is the practice of limiting how many people may present themselves at a port of entry to request asylum on any given day. Instead of allowing everyone who arrives at the border to immediately begin the asylum process, immigration officers can require people to wait outside the United States until they are permitted to present themselves for inspection.

The legal question before the Supreme Court was whether someone who is standing outside the United States but at a entrance to a port of entry has legally arrived in the United States for purposes of our asylum laws. The Supreme Court answered The majority concluded that someone waiting on the Mexican side of the border has not yet arrived under the Immigration and Nationality Act. And because of that, the government may lawfully require those individuals to wait before they’re processed.

So what changes? Well, this decision is significant because it gives the federal government considerable authority to control who is permitted to reach the point where they can even ask for asylum. The court concluded that someone waiting outside a port of entry has not yet arrived in the US under the Immigration and Nationality Act, so that means immigration officials may require those individuals to remain outside the country before they’re allowed to present themselves for inspection.

Now, one question I’ve already been asked is, does this mean the government can permanently prevent anyone from applying for asylum? The answer is not exactly. The decision does not eliminate asylum as a form of immigration relief, and it does not say that asylum seekers lose their legal protections altogether. But from a practical standpoint, this decision could make it much harder for some people to ever reach the point where they can apply.

If the government has broad authority to limit who is allowed to approach the port of entry, and when some asylum seekers may remain stranded outside the US for prolonged periods of time. In some cases, that could mean remaining in dangerous border regions where they’re vulnerable to violence, exploitation, and other serious harm while waiting for an opportunity that may never come.

Decision number 2, TPS for Haiti and Syria. The second decision is one that will affect hundreds of thousands of people currently living and working in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration may move forward with terminating temporary protected status or TPS for Haiti and Syria. The court held that the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decision to terminate TPS is largely committed to executive discretion and is not something courts may second-guess in the way that plaintiffs requested.

So what does this actually mean? first, people are not automatically being deported today. Losing TPS does not create a removal order. It does not mean ICE immediately begins deportation proceedings against every affected individual. Instead, what happens is that the immigration protection provided by TPS ends.

Once the termination becomes effective, individuals who do not have another lawful immigration status or another form of protection may become removable and may lose their employment authorization. One question I’ve already received is, what exactly does– When exactly does TPS end? And the Supreme Court’s decision itself does not establish a new termination date, but it allows the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with implementing the TPS terminations it had previously announced.

For Haitian and Syrian beneficiaries, that means the protections will end on the effective date published by Department of Homeland Security, unless additional litigation or administrative action changes the timeline. So are these individuals now in immediate danger of deportation? The, the answer is no.

But once TPS protections expire, individuals who don’t have another lawful status or another form of relief may become removable under the immigration laws. And at that point, DHS would have the authority to initiate removal proceedings on a case-by-case basis. Another concern many immigration advocates are raising in the wake of this decision is, well, what does this decision mean for TPS holders from other designated countries?

If future administrations or this administration chooses to terminate additional TPS designations, this decision may make it easier to move forward with that. It would be harder to challenge this decision.

For that reason, many immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations are watching this case very, very closely. They’re concerned that today’s ruling could mark the beginning of a broader shift in how secure TPS protections really are. So if you or someone you know has TPS, even if it’s not through Haiti or Syria, now is a good time to understand what other immigration options may be available.

And for our third case, the Blanche v. Lau case. Okay. This is a case that’s actually involving permanent residents or green card holders. In Blanche v. Lau, the Supreme Court considered when a lawful permanent resident returning from travel abroad can be treated as an applicant for admission. Normally, green card holders are not considered applicants for admission every time they return from an international trip.

However, Congress created several exceptions to that rule, one of which being that when a returning resident has committed certain criminal offenses, they could be considered applicants for admission. So the issue here before the court was whether immigration officers may rely on an indictment or a comparable accusation when deciding whether the exception applies, or whether they must wait until there is a conviction. The Supreme Court concluded that immigration officers may rely on the existence of qualifying criminal charges in making that determination.

In other words, a conviction is not always required before a returning resident can be treated as an applicant for admission. So what’s the practical takeaway? You guys, this is a cautionary tale for every green card holder. If you have any criminal history, pending criminal charges, or even think you may have an issue that could trigger inadmissibility, do not travel internationally before speaking with an experienced immigration attorney. Many permanent residents understandably assume that having a green card guarantees they can always return to the US after traveling abroad.

That has never been entirely true, but this decision reinforces that CBP has significant authority to closely examine returning residents when one of the statutory exemptions The safest course is always to evaluate the immigration consequences before getting on For many green card holders, this case is a reminder that criminal law and immigration law often intersect in unexpected ways, and what may seem like a routine trip abroad can become much more complicated if there are unresolved criminal issues.

You guys, this has already been an incredibly consequential week for immigration law. In fairness, the last couple of weeks have been, and we’re probably not finished yet. We are still waiting on bated breath for the Supreme Court’s decision involving birthright citizenship. This could become one of the most closely watched immigration cases in decades.

We’re also waiting on additional decisions involving the administration’s immigration enforcement authority. As soon as those opinions are released, I will break them down in plain English and explain what they mean for immigrants, employers, and families. If you found this video helpful, please like, subscribe, and share it with someone who may benefit from these updates. Thanks so much for watching, and I’ll see you in the next one.