Supreme Court Expands Executive Power Over Immigration in Two Major Rulings
Key Questions
What did the Supreme Court rule regarding Temporary Protected Status (TPS)?
In a 6-3 decision, the Court eliminated judicial review of DHS decisions to terminate TPS, affecting protections for about 1.3 million immigrants. This has led to concerns for Haitian communities in states like Indiana and Ohio.
How did the Court rule on asylum seekers at the border?
A separate 6-3 ruling permitted the turning away of asylum seekers, expanding executive authority and removing a key legal pathway for protection claims.
What real-world impacts are emerging from the TPS ruling?
ICE is preparing enforcement operations targeting Haitians losing TPS, with Springfield, Ohio as a focus area. Work authorizations are also set to lapse, increasing risks for affected individuals.
What legal challenges have followed the TPS decision?
The D.C. Circuit has pushed back on the ruling, and advocates are pursuing further litigation to preserve protections for thousands of immigrants.
How are humanitarian protections changing under these rulings?
Only four TPS countries remain active, and advocates warn of higher barriers for proving racial animus plus increased dangerous crossings as a result of the decisions.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court stripped court review of DHS termination decisions for TPS, impacting 1.3M immigrants. In a separate 6-3 ruling, the Court allowed asylum seekers to be turned away at the border. Circuit courts are reversing some injunctions, but district courts are finding new constitutional hooks. The Haiti TPS injunction is now officially dead after Mullin v. Doe, but due process litigation continues. ICE is preparing a major enforcement operation targeting Haitians losing TPS, with Springfield, Ohio as a focal point. A new LULAC report shows disproportionate targeting of Latinos after the Court's racial profiling decision. A GOP bill targets the detention framework, and the Court granted cert in Genalo v. Black (indefinite detention) and Raycraft v. Lopez-Campos (circuit split).