The Supreme Court has issued two rulings favorable to the Trump administration's immigration policies, addressing the processing of asylum claims and the revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
In the case of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court determined that migrants who are turned away at the U.S. border and have not yet entered the country are not eligible to apply for asylum. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito stated that an individual is not considered to have "arrived in" the United States if they are still in Mexico and have been prevented from entering. This ruling is significant as current law grants the right to apply for asylum to anyone who "arrives in the United States."
Alito elaborated that in ordinary language, arrival in a place, whether a house, city, or country, implies prior entry. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that asylum seekers turned away at the border had, in fact, "arrived in" the U.S. for the purposes of their claim.
In a second case, Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled that Haitian and Syrian nationals residing in the U.S. under TPS are not entitled to judicial relief to postpone the termination of their status while they challenge the administration's revocation decisions in court. Justice Alito explained that the TPS statute explicitly prohibits judicial review of any determination regarding the termination of a TPS designation, unless the claims are constitutional in nature.
These decisions are seen as significant wins for the Trump administration's broader efforts to curb illegal immigration and reduce the number of asylum claims. Conservatives have long argued that existing asylum processing rights and TPS protections have been subject to abuse. The rulings make it more difficult for asylum applications to proceed and permit the termination of TPS for certain individuals already in the country.