SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
asylum seekers
SCOTUS’ Rulings on TPS and Asylum Entries Supercharge Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Agenda
With these decisions, the Supreme Court once again bends the knee to Trump’s vile agenda of violence and death; eliminating humanitarian protections and denying asylum to those who need them most betrays every value that makes this nation great.
Jun 26, 2026
On June 25, the Supreme Court drastically expanded the Trump administration’s ability to shape the nation’s immigration system. In two separate 6-3 decisions, the court’s conservative majority ruled that the administration can revoke Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants, as well as physically block asylum-seekers from entering the country and applying for legal protections.
Both rulings are as cruel as they are nonsensical.
Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
Since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has sought to end TPS for over 1 million migrants from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Somalia, and Syria. These termination orders have been challenged in court and, to date, seven of them remain paused.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, however, puts all of them in jeopardy. While it allows DHS to remove legal protections for Haitians and Syrians specifically, it paves the way for the department to terminate TPS for any group with little to no oversight.
if Trump’s gross fearmongering about Haitians eating cats and dogs is not “overtly racial,” then it’s hard to imagine this Supreme Court acknowledging any of this administration’s blatant racism and xenophobia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito claims that the courts are prohibited from reviewing whether DHS’ decision to terminate TPS complied with the legally required procedures needed to cancel the status. For example, whether former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem “inadequately consulted the State Department about conditions in Syria” or, more broadly, whether “her decision that country conditions in Syria and Haiti justified termination of their TPS designations” are exempt from any form of judicial review.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not rule that DHS followed the proper protocols when ending TPS. Nor did it determine that conditions in those countries were safe—and, in fact, the Trump administration knows they are not. The State Department has active travel advisories warning Americans against traveling to Syria and Haiti “for any reason” due to the risk of crime, terrorism, kidnapping, unrest, limited healthcare, hostage taking, and armed conflict. It is also worth noting that the present conditions in those countries are the direct result of America’s actions in Syria through decades of sanctions and military intervention; and in Haiti, through years of colonial occupation and repeatedly undermining their democratic process.
For the conservative justices, none of this matters. These issues are, in their view, beyond the scope of the courts.
This is a ridiculous assessment. The relevant statute (8 U.S.C. 1254a) reads: “There is no judicial review of any determination […] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.” The court’s conservatives read the word “determination” here to refer to (i) the final decision, (ii) the entire decision-making process, and (iii) every sub-decision within that process. Based on that definition, they conclude that this statute “squarely bars” the courts from assessing the legality of any aspect of DHS’ decision to end TPS.
As Justice Elena Kagan puts it, this interpretation is not only “very broad,” but “very strange.” In her dissenting opinion, she correctly notes that the statute only applies to the final “determination” with regards to whether TPS is actually granted, terminated, or extended. It “does nothing to stop courts from reviewing […] other things” such as “the procedural steps the Secretary must undertake prior to making any determination about country conditions.”
This is not only more consistent with the relevant text but reflects a basic presumption inherent to our system of checks and balances—namely, that “Congress intends the executive to obey its statutory commands and, accordingly, that it expects the courts to grant relief when an executive agency violates such a command.”
After all, if Congress intended DHS to have broad authority to revoke TPS at its sole discretion, then why would it create a multi-step protocol that the department must follow to lawfully end those protections? That fact alone entails that it always intended how DHS reached its “determination” to be subject to judicial and external review.
The conservative majority ignores such considerations. Instead of proper judicial interpretation, they offer a politically motivated and disingenuous rationale designed to give the Trump administration complete control over the humanitarian program.
To this end, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration one more gift: sanitizing its racism.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that terminating TPS for Haitians was racially motivated and thus violated the equal protection clause. For the court’s conservatives, none of President Trump’s past remarks—which include that Haitians are “eating the dogs,” “probably have AIDS,” and that Haiti is a “shithole country”—“were overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.” Whatever these “race-neutral justifications” are, the court conveniently fails to elaborate.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas goes even further. He posits that the plaintiff’s suit would fail simply because “aliens have no equal protection rights against the Federal Government.” Constitutionally, this is painfully wrong. Morally, this is utterly disgusting.
In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court effectively cleared all legal obstacles against the Trump administration’s efforts to end TPS for anyone at any time for any reason. Their ruling renders non-constitutional challenges regarding policy adherence moot from the outset. And if Trump’s gross fearmongering about Haitians eating cats and dogs is not “overtly racial,” then it’s hard to imagine this Supreme Court acknowledging any of this administration’s blatant racism and xenophobia. Their willful ignorance renders the equal protection clause similarly moot.
Asylum Entries
To make matters worse, the Supreme Court was not done. In a separate decision, the court’s conservatives upheld the Trump administration’s “turn-back policy” (also known as “metering”) that allows federal agents at the US border to stop migrants from crossing into the US.
Currently, federal law permits any migrant “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival […])” to apply for asylum. In Mulin v. Al Otro Lado, the Trump administration argued that their policy does not violate this law since, insofar as those migrants never step foot onto US soil, they never become entitled to apply for asylum in the first place.
The Supreme Court agreed. Writing again for the court’s majority, Alito claims that this case is “straightforward.” He writes, “In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters the place.”
The Trump administration does not cherish life. The Supreme Court does not value justice. Congress is now the last line of governmental defense against full-on fascism.
Yet, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes in her dissenting opinion, the majority’s fixation with the word “in” overlooks the broader context of the statute. Federal law dictates that any migrant “arriving” and “seeking admission” into the country “shall be inspected by immigration officers.” If they are ineligible for admission, they shall be removed unless they indicate “an intention to apply for asylum […] or a fear of persecution.” In that case, “the officer shall refer the alien for an interview.” That clause clearly applies to migrants who haven’t physically entered the US.
This also explains the language Congress uses in that statute. Under the majority’s reading, to “arrive in” the US is synonymous with being “physically present in” the US. But, if this is true, then why would Congress include both phrases if they were so obviously redundant? It’s because, in addition to being physically present, those who have arrived before an immigration official also have the right to apply for asylum even if they are not physically present in the US.
As Sotomayor bleakly remarks, “The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not.”
This point not only underlines the cruelty of the policy, but also its sheer stupidity. Asylum-seekers brave horrible conditions, traveling hundreds if not thousands of miles away from their homes in search of a better life. Sotomayor is obviously correct that some will take the extra steps to enter the country by any means necessary. This is especially true if they believe that doing so is their only means of acquiring asylum. Trump’s policy undermines a system that would allow federal officials to screen migrants at the border, review their case, and provide them proper guidance for one that openly encourages the very kinds of “illegal entries” that his administration consistently bemoans as an existential threat to the nation.
Trump’s Humanitarian Crisis
With these decisions, the Supreme Court once again bends the knee to Trump’s vile agenda of violence and death. Eliminating humanitarian protections and denying asylum to those who need them most betray every value that makes this nation great.
What’s more, the court further exacerbates a humanitarian crisis that Trump is either intentionally or indifferently manufacturing. In his second term alone, he has either threatened or attacked 15 countries including Greenland, Venezuela, Somalia, and Syria; launched over 60 military strikes in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific Ocean that have killed over 200 people; eliminated the US Agency for International Development (USAID)—an act that could lead to 9.4 million deaths by 2030; launched an illegal war that has killed more than 7,300 people in Iran and Lebanon; a war that has also wrecked the global economy and caused fuel and food shortages in the world’s poorest and most remote areas; has consistently aided and supported Israel’s genocide in Gaza; imposed a total oil blockade that is economically asphyxiating Cuba; and has made refugee status in the US a privilege nearly-exclusive to white South Africans (who he claims—without evidence—are facing “racially motivated violence”), among many other similarly insidious and corrupted acts.
Our best option is to empower Congress to stand up against both the Trump administration and his Supreme Court by working to elect as many progressive candidates in November.
In short, the Trump administration does not cherish life. The Supreme Court does not value justice. Congress is now the last line of governmental defense against full-on fascism.
Fortunately, even Republicans understand the gravity of this situation. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), for instance, has already called for Congress to extend TPS for Haitians. For all of Trump’s bigotry, migrants remain an indispensable part of the US economy.
Ultimately, we need extensions for every group under threat from the Supreme Court’s reckless decisions as well as new protections for those who have already lost their TPS designations. For now, our best option is to empower Congress to stand up against both the Trump administration and his Supreme Court by working to elect as many progressive candidates in November. Before things get worse, we need fighters in Congress that will serve the people’s interest and stand up to Trump and his cronies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
There's No Doubt: The Supreme Court Is Part of Trump's Anti-Democracy Movement
Even in the face of two laws in which Congress instructed the executive branch to do certain things, a majority of the current Supreme Court—the abominable Roberts Court—has bent over backwards to ignore those laws.
Jun 26, 2026
The real way to read the immigration decisions the Supreme Court issued on Thursday is not to see them solely as losses for immigrants to the United States or the rights of immigrants. They are much larger losses. They are losses for the authority of Congress to have its laws fully executed by a president who doesn’t agree with them.
Markwayne Mullin vs. Al Otro Lado concerns a 1917 law that requires immigration officers to inspect noncitizens who arrive at ports of entry to determine whether they may enter the United States. Congress amended the law in the Refugee Act of 1980 to allow noncitizens fleeing persecution in their home country to apply for asylum as part of this inspection process.
The act lays out a required set of procedures to guide this process. It says that a noncitizen who seeks admission to the United States “may apply for asylum.” If the noncitizen lacks valid travel documents, the officer “shall order [her] removed” unless she conveys an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution, which in turn requires the officer to “refer” her for further processing of her asylum application.
This system is designed to ensure that the US government considers the application of each person seeking to come into the United States to determine who should be let in, who should be turned away, and who should be allowed to apply for asylum.
This must be seen for what it really is—a systemic effort by the six Republican appointees on the court to shrink congressional authority and enlarge the authority of the executive branch.
But on Thursday, the Supreme Court’s majority held that a president may circumvent these requirements simply by having US immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting foot on US soil—even if the asylum-seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away.
What happened to the Refugee Act of 1980 and the specific procedures outlined in it? The Supreme Court ignored it.
The other decision released today, Markwayne Mullin vs. Dahlia Doe, concerns another law, part of the Immigration Act of 1990 called Temporary Protected Status. For over a decade administrations have provided humanitarian Temporary Protected Status relief to Haitian and Syrian nationals coming to the United States.
Today, the Supreme Court’s majority held that federal courts may not review the Secretary of Homeland Security’s compliance with that law. But in fact the Immigration Act of 1990 specifically allows judicial review of whether the secretary adhered to the procedures the law requires—exactly what the plaintiffs disputed.
It would be easy to see these two cases solely through the lens of immigration—and conclude that the Supreme Court’s decisions Thursday simply backed President Donald Trump and his fanatical underling Stephen Miller’s commitment to block noncitizens from the United States or to force them out. And surely these are the consequences of both of the rulings.
But the decisions are even darker and more dangerous than this. Even in the face of two laws in which Congress instructed the executive branch to do certain things, a majority of the current Supreme Court—the abominable Roberts Court—has bent over backwards to ignore those laws.
This must be seen for what it really is—a systemic effort by the six Republican appointees on the court to shrink congressional authority and enlarge the authority of the executive branch.
If there was any doubt before, there should be none now: The Supreme Court is part of the anti-democracy movement led by Trump and the billionaires behind him.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Systematically Dismantling the Immigration Court System
The Trump administration’s overhaul of the immigration court system prioritizes cruelty and deportations over justice and the people’s right to due process.
Jun 01, 2026
On May 26, Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival issued a memo directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, attorneys within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor to develop “anti-fraud policies” designed for “robust enforcement.” This effort “should include enforcement against immigration attorneys filing false asylum claims in immigration courts.”
In a press release, Percival further added: “Protection claims like asylum are intended to cover unique and narrow circumstances, but it is standard practice for immigration attorneys representing illegal aliens to assert that virtually every illegal alien is going to be persecuted or tortured in his or her home country. Historically, ICE has depended on the discipline of immigration judges and the enforcement of criminal fraud laws to deter this conduct, but ICE has its own tools. Now, thanks to this directive, ICE attorneys have greater authority to enforce the law and stop the abuse of our asylum system by illegal aliens and attorneys.”
Despite these accusations, however, there is no evidence of widespread asylum fraud occurring. As the National Immigration Forum explains, there are two departments responsible for adjudicating asylum cases: the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). While each department has a dedicated fraud detection and prevention division, neither releases regular data on the number of cases terminated or investigated for fraud.
What limited data is available does not support the Trump administration’s case whatsoever. For instance, according to a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, “The number of USCIS asylum terminations for fraud has decreased in recent years, from 103 in fiscal year 2010 to 34 in fiscal year 2014.” During that span, USCIS terminated asylum for a total of 374 individuals due to fraud, while granting asylum to 76,122 individuals.
Going after immigration attorneys is another step toward dismantling the immigration court system and stripping noncitizens of any legal protection.
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network reports that USCIS issued 892 Notices of Intent to Terminate (NOITs) asylum status between 2009 and 2020, according to data they obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Of those issued NOITs, Notices of Continuation of Status were granted in 231 cases. Only 562 cases were terminated due to “fraud in the application.”
It is also worth noting that most asylum requests are denied. This does not mean, however, that those people did not have a legitimate fear of being persecuted or harmed in their home country. Because of regulations imposed by the Trump administration and other precedents, it is incredibly difficult for those fleeing domestic abuse, gender-based violence, police violence, and gang violence to win asylum. Even cases that would have been approved in the past are now ending with deportation orders.
What is occurring here is simply another instance of President Donald Trump weaponizing allegations of fraud to target and undermine an institution he dislikes. Whether it’s elections, Medicaid, Social Security, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Democrat-run cities, or immigration, Trump insists, without evidence, that widespread fraud is occurring at unprecedented levels. That baseless accusation then becomes the pretext for a wildly illegal abuse of power. All the while, the actual rampant fraud being committed by the Trump administration is swept under the rug.
Going after immigration attorneys is another step toward dismantling the immigration court system and stripping noncitizens of any legal protection.
Already in the past year, Trump has fired over 100 immigration judges out of roughly 750 that were in place when he returned to power. The majority of those fired were appointed under Democratic administrations, had previously worked as attorneys defending immigrants, and granted asylum at higher rates than those who kept their jobs (46% compared with 15%). The administration’s new hires, by contrast, have granted asylum in approximately 6% of cases.
Notably, in August 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a rule allowing “any attorney,” including those with no prior experience in immigration law, to serve as temporary immigration judges. The same week, the Pentagon authorized 600 military lawyers to serve six-month terms as temporary judges. As Kyra Lilien, a former immigration judge who was abruptly terminated in July 2025, noted: “Firing expert, high-performing, effective judges and replacing them with inexperienced temps does not make the courts more efficient or achieve any goals of systemic reform. It is simply destructive.”
Amid this purge of immigration judges, San Francisco’s immigration court, which handled the third-largest number of asylum cases in the nation, was forced to close on May 1, 2026. This is no accident. Between 2019 to 2024, almost 75% of petitioners were granted some form of relief by that court compared with 43% nationwide. This disparity, however, is not due to fraud, but rather reflects the incredible work of California’s vast pro-immigrant organizations and pro bono or low-cost legal services. Their efforts continue to ensure that most noncitizens across the state have access to legal representation at their hearings.
More than 117,000 cases previously handled by the San Francisco court are now being relocated to a courthouse in Concord, about 30 miles away from the city. However, because of firings, the Concord court is, at the time of this writing, down to four immigration judges and one supervisor.
These firings will continue. Any judge who resists Trump’s mass deportation regime will be removed and replaced with someone who won’t. In recruitment ads, the DOJ and DHS openly encourage applicants to “become a deportation judge.”
At the same time, Trump is taking additional steps to maximize the number of removal orders being issued by the courts. As part of removal proceedings, individuals are required to attend “master calendar hearings”—these are brief, preliminary hearings wherein a judge formally notifies the person of the charges against them and provides them with a schedule for future hearings.
Noncitizens are now being scheduled for master calendar hearings consisting of 100 or more people at a time. These “mega masters” are largely made up of people without any form of legal representation whose original hearing was scheduled for 2027, 2028, or 2029. In February 2026, dozens of Somali migrants also had their hearings abruptly rescheduled for later that month and the next.
The goal here is simple: When someone does not appear for their hearing, regardless of the reason, a judge can issue an in absentia removal order that allows ICE agents to detain and deport them. The Trump administration is fast-tracking these cases, providing immigrants and their attorneys little to no notice, in the hopes that most will miss their hearings and a judge—whether out of fear of losing their job or loyalty to Trump—will move to deport them.
In short, the Trump administration’s overhaul of the immigration court system prioritizes cruelty and deportations over justice and the people’s right to due process.
This must end. Immigration judges should not fear losing their job for doing the right thing. Immigration attorneys should not be subject to federal investigations for helping their clients. Meaningful reforms must be implemented both to solve the problems Trump has created and the ones that predated him.
Such reforms include: first, guaranteeing that every noncitizen has access to a publicly funded attorney.
Second, ensuring that the asylum process is fair and consistent across the nation. As it stands, asylum acceptance and denial rates vary significantly from judge to judge and from court to court, effectively making the asylum process into a lottery. For instance, a 2017 Reuters report documented the nearly identical stories of two Honduran women who were targeted by gang violence due to their activism. One was granted asylum by the now-closed San Francisco court, while the other was denied their request by a court in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, immigration courts must be removed from the executive branch. This is a necessary step to protect due process and stop the abuses being enacted by the Trump administration.
Ultimately, everyone, regardless of immigration status or whatever Trump believes, deserves to be treated with dignity and have their rights respected.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular