United States — The U.S. Supreme Court finished its term with major decisions concerning immigrants’ and refugees’ fate and status in the country. While it reaffirmed some constitutional rights, the Court stripped others. CIRA Law Clerk Vanessa Lara Garcia analyzed each decision and its impact on our communities. 

Reaffirmed Birthright Citizenship 

On his inauguration, President Donald Trump issued an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. The administration argued children born in the U.S. to parents who were either in the country unlawfully or temporarily, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and would no longer automatically receive U.S. citizenship at birth. The order was supposed to take effect 30 days after being signed, but several federal judges blocked it while lawsuits challenging its legality were pending.  

The Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, in Trump v. Barbara, that children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens at birth, even if their parents are in the country without lawful status or are here temporarily. Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship cannot be enforced because it violates the Constitution. The decision reinforces that birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th Amendment, and any attempt to limit it would require either a constitutional amendment or a major shift in Supreme Court interpretation, not just an executive order.  

Chief Justice John Roberts concluded the majority opinion, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights— to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Temporary Protects Status (TPS) Terminations 

The Supreme Court ruled in Mullin v. Doe that the federal government can terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) with few limitations in a 6-3 decision. 

TPS is a program that allows people from countries experiencing war, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to temporarily live and work in the U.S. Syrian and Haitian nationals challenged the government’s decision to end the TPS designation for Syria and Haiti. They argued the government did not follow the law or the required procedures when it terminated TPS, and the decision may have been racially motivated. 

The Court considered whether federal courts have the authority to: (1) review the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decisions to terminate TPS designations, and (2) issue temporary court orders preventing those terminations from taking effect while the legal challenges are pending.

The Court held that courts generally do not have the authority to review or block DHS’s decisions to terminate TPS. Instead, the Court explained these decisions are largely left to the executive branch. As a result, the government may move forward with ending TPS for Haiti and Syria while the legal challenges continue. 

In doing so, the Court made it clear that the only challenges to TPS terminations would have to be constitutional, for example, for equal protection or due process violations. 

The government further argued it was not targeting Haiti because of the country’s people or race. Instead, it stated the administration opposed the TPS program as a whole and intended to end TPS designations as they expired. The Court found this was a race-neutral explanation for terminating Haiti’s TPS designation. 

The Court’s decision means TPS holders can no longer rely on the courts to keep their TPS protections in place while lawsuits challenging the termination are pending. If the government moves forward with ending TPS for their country, that decision may take effect even while the legal challenges continue. For many TPS holders, this could mean losing their permission to live and work in the U.S. unless they qualify for another immigration status or form of immigration relief. 

Justice Elena Kagan disagreed with the majority decision saying there was evidence of racism from the administration: “The majority briefly replies that those remarks are not ‘overtly racial,’ but it is hard to know what that means. Haitians are Black. (Norwegians and Swedes not so much.) The references—of filth, disease and primitiveness—are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes. It is hard to imagine the statements being made today of any White community. No very ‘sensitive inquiry,’ is needed to see them for what they are; judges, as we often say, are ‘not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.’ The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.” 

“Metering” and Asylum at the Border 

The Supreme Court ruled in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado in a 6-3 decision that the federal government may turn away asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border before they enter the U.S. The Court held that migrants who are stopped before crossing into the country have not yet “arrived in the United States” under the federal asylum law, which allows non-U.S. citizens to apply for asylum only once they have arrived in or are physically present in the country.

The Court found the government’s practice known as “metering” does not violate federal law. Under this policy, Customs and Border Protection officers may limit the number of migrants allowed to enter through ports of entry by turning others away until space becomes available. The Court reasoned a person has not “arrived” somewhere until they enter that place. Therefore, asylum seekers who are stopped at the border before entering the U.S. do not yet have the right to apply for asylum. 

The dissent argued this interpretation undermines the purpose of the asylum laws by preventing people from legally requesting protection at ports of entry. The dissent also warned the ruling could encourage migrants to cross the border unlawfully because those who are physically blocked from entering a port of entry may be unable to seek asylum through the legal process. 

This decision allows the federal government to continue turning away asylum seekers at ports of entry before they enter the U.S., including those seeking safety from well-documented incidents of death, sexual assault, murders, kidnapping, extortion, illness, and family separation. Those individuals generally cannot insist on applying for asylum until they are physically inside the country, giving the government greater control over when and how asylum seekers may access the U.S. asylum system. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion saying, “The majority’s interpretation permits the Government to [turn people back] even if the refugees complied with all applicable laws and regulations, even if the port had ample capacity to inspect them, and even if turning them back would result in the very persecution from which they narrowly escaped…More people will die.”