Supreme Court Immigration Decisions Shift Asylum and Temporary Protected Status Policies

WASHINGTON — The latest Supreme Court immigration decisions have significantly altered the landscape of U.S. border protection, handing the Trump administration major victories regarding both asylum access and Temporary Protected Status (TPS). As the justices approach their summer break, these landmark rulings are reshaping who can seek refuge in the United States and threatening the legal status of hundreds of thousands of current residents.

Stripping Temporary Protected Status
In a major ruling regarding humanitarian protections, the court cleared the way for the White House to strip TPS from hundreds of thousands of Haitian, Syrian, and Venezuelan immigrants. TPS is a humanitarian status that protects individuals from deportation.

Immigration attorney and policy expert Andrea Flores explained that the TPS framework was originally created and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. The policy was designed with a foreign policy interest in preventing the return of immigrants to countries experiencing civil war, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary conditions.

Haiti was originally designated for TPS under the Obama administration following the devastating 2010 earthquake, while Syria received the designation after its civil war. According to Flores, many of these immigrants have been living in the country illegally for over 15 years. The ruling is particularly disruptive for Venezuelans; despite a recent environmental disaster that would typically trigger an expansion of protections under either a Republican or Democratic administration, the Trump administration attempted to terminate TPS for Venezuela last year. Currently, roughly 400,000 Venezuelans live and work in the U.S. under this status.

In total, just short of 1.3 million people utilize TPS. Flores noted that government updates regarding termination dates for Haiti, Syria, and Venezuela are expected soon. The ruling also creates immense uncertainty for TPS holders from Ukraine and Afghanistan, as well as Salvadorans—who have lived in the U.S. since the 1990s and face an upcoming re-review.

The ripple effects extend far beyond the immigrant communities. Flores highlighted that the decision creates significant uncertainty for American employers, specifically in the healthcare and housing industries. The economic impact is already drawing bipartisan concern; Ohio’s Republican Governor, Mike DeWine, recently warned that losing TPS for Haitian immigrants would have a devastating impact on his state.

Asylum Restrictions and the “Metering” Revival
In a separate 6-3 decision, the justices overturned a lower court order that had previously blocked the practice of limiting the number of people who could apply for asylum each day. The ruling essentially dictates that migrants who are turned away at the border before physically entering the country are not entitled to apply for asylum.

This decision revives an Obama-era asylum restriction known as “metering,” which was also utilized during Trump’s first term. Flores noted that it was somewhat confusing why the Trump administration pursued this specific litigation, as they have already effectively suspended access to asylum at the border and did not strictly need another tool to turn migrants away.

Currently, Flores observed, there is not much happening at the border, and asylum laws as they have been historically known are effectively suspended. If migrants do manage to make it into the country, their ability to apply for asylum remains highly restricted. While some individuals are still screened for protections under the Convention Against Torture, others are being deported back to the countries they are fleeing. The administration has justified these measures by declaring an “invasion” and maintaining an emergency state at the border.

Flores pointed out that previous administrations, including President Biden’s, implemented similar policies to reduce border numbers, resulting in a patchwork of border policies over the years. She emphasized that Congress must modernize and reform the asylum system, as the current uncertainty makes it incredibly difficult to provide guidance to asylum seekers.

Anticipation for Birthright Citizenship Ruling
While the TPS and asylum rulings were handed down this week, legal experts are closely watching for one final, highly anticipated Supreme Court immigration decision before the justices recess for the summer: the fate of birthright citizenship.

Expected to be released as early as Monday, the case could lead to a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. The administration’s stance challenges a well-settled legal precedent that has existed since 1898. The ACLU argued the case against the administration’s interpretation.

According to Flores, many legal experts believe the Roberts court will side against the administration. During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared highly skeptical of the solicitor general’s textual reading of the Constitution. Because the Chief Justice holds a critical swing vote, his skepticism during the arguments suggests a potential win for the challengers, though the final ruling remains unknown until it is officially delivered.