Supreme Court sides with Trump on ending TPS for Haitians and Syrians, rules migrants outside US aren't arrivals

By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter Thursday, June 25, 2026

The United States Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two major immigration victories Thursday, ruling that asylum seekers turned away before entering the U.S. cannot claim they have legally "arrived" in the country, and allowing the administration to end temporary protected status (TPS) for immigrants from Haiti and Syria, which was given in response to crises that unfolded more than a decade ago. 

In the first case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court ruled 6-3 that a person seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border has not "arrive[d] in the United States" while still in Mexico.

Justice Samuel Alito, appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush, wrote the majority opinion. He rejected a Ninth Circuit ruling that would have allowed asylum seekers turned away at ports of entry to challenge the federal government's "metering" policy, which limited entry during periods of high migrant traffic.

"This case presents a straightforward question: whether an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico 'arrives in the United States' when he or she is still in Mexico," Alito wrote. "In the decision below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered 'yes.' That is wrong."

"In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person 'arrives in' a place ... before the person enters that place," he added.

Alito illustrated the point with several examples.

“The running back does not arrive in the end zone (and six points do not go up on the scoreboard) when he is tackled at the 1-yard line by the defense. The guest does not arrive in the house when the homeowner locks the door right before the guest tries to open it.” 

The case arose after the immigration advocacy group Al Otro Lado challenged the federal government's practice of turning away asylum seekers before they entered the U.S., arguing the policy unlawfully denied them the opportunity to seek asylum.

The Supreme Court reversed rulings from both the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and the Ninth Circuit.

The opinion relies heavily on the plain meaning of the term “arrives in the United States” as used in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which require the admission of any illegal immigrant who “arrives in the United States.” 

Alito rejected the notion that the definition of “arrives in” changes when someone “block[s]” the person seeking to arrive.” 

The five other justices appointed by Republican presidents — Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — also sided with the federal government over immigration advocacy group Al Otro Lado in its challenge to a policy turning away illegal immigrants seeking to enter the U.S.

The three justices appointed by Democratic presidents, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. 

The dissenting opinion, authored by Sotomayor, disagreed with the majority opinion’s interpretation of the term “arrives in the United States.” Sotomayor cited a hypothetical “movie theater policy that states, ‘Anyone who arrives in the theater may buy a ticket and all moviegoers must have their tickets scanned before entering’” as she disputed the majority’s understanding of the phrase “arrives in.”

“If a person walks up to a ticket booth located just outside the theater, it would be unreasonable to think they could not buy a ticket under the policy because they are not ‘in’ the theater yet,” she stated. Sotomayor also suggested that the effect of the policy turning away asylum seekers before they can enter the U.S. at a legal port of entry would only encourage them to cross the border illegally between ports of entry. 

In the second decision, Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration's decision to terminate TPS for immigrants from Haiti and Syria.

The court concluded that federal law bars judicial review of the Department of Homeland Security's decisions to designate, extend or terminate TPS for a country.

The majority also rejected arguments that the administration's decision regarding Haiti was motivated by racial animus, concluding that the action reflected the administration's broader immigration policy rather than discrimination against Haitians.

The opinion noted that the administration also declined to renew TPS designations for a diverse group of countries, including Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Venezuela and Yemen.

As with today's other immigration-related decision, the ruling came down along party lines. The six Republican-appointed justices formed the majority opinion and the three Democrat-appointed justices dissented. 

Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.

The dissent argued that the Department of Homeland Security failed to follow required procedures before terminating TPS and contended that statements previously made by President Donald Trump about Haiti supported allegations that racial bias influenced the decision.

The dissent alleged that Trump’s purported description of Haiti as a “s---hole country” back in 2018 was evidence of racial animus informing the TPS revocation.