SCOTUS clears path to end asylum access at border

In three rulings Thursday, the Supreme Court backed decisions that shut off asylum access at the border, expand deportation authority over some lawful permanent residents, and end Temporary Protected Status—decisions critics say turn compassion into cruelty po

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a set of three immigration rulings, and the impact arrived fast for people who were hoping the system would work the way Congress intended.

In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court ruled asylum seekers can be turned away at the U.S. border because they have not yet physically entered the country. The argument from the other side is straightforward: it resembles a bully blocking a door and daring someone to push past it. The Refugee Act of 1980 created a process for refugees to apply for help once they have gotten to the United States. and that process is effectively nullified by the Court’s approach.

Blanche v. Lau followed with another change. The Court held that immigration officers can deport and deny lawful permanent residents—green card holders—entry into the country if they reasonably believe the residents have committed a crime involving “moral turpitude.” Critics describe the term as vague and archaic. and say it hands the federal government a broad blank check. leaving permanent residents in “immigration limbo.”.

Then came Mullin v. Doe. which critics call the harshest of the trio: it ends Temporary Protected Status for an estimated 330. 000 Haitians. 6. 000 Syrians. and potentially more than one million other immigrants in the United States under the TPS program. TPS was created in 1990 and protects immigrants who are unable to return to their home countries because of violence. natural disasters or other great danger.

The Court’s majority action has landed on people who. in the critics’ telling. do not fit the stereotype used to justify crackdowns. Temporary Protected Status holders are not described as “illegal aliens” or “criminal aliens.” They have “obeyed the law. ” and the argument is that they contribute billions of dollars to the American economy.

But the consequences, critics say, are not abstract. People fleeing persecution—because of political beliefs, gender or sexuality, and how they pray—face peril. Doctors who provide life-saving care in their communities, the argument goes, will be forced to leave the country. Scientists would have to stop their research. Parents would be taken away from children born in the United States. Businesses would be forced to close. communities hollowed out. and many people sent back to war zones and countries devastated by natural disasters.

In dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor—joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson—invoked the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II. including the case of MS St. Louis. In 1939, the German ocean liner carried Jewish refugees toward the United States, but was turned away. The ship was forced to return to Europe, and almost all of its passengers were later murdered by the Nazis.

Sotomayor wrote that Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980 because it did not want the country to repeat mistakes of its past. Yet, she argued, if the refugees on the MS St. Louis walked up to a port of entry on the southern border today. the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto U.S. soil. In another warning, Sotomayor said, “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.”.

Together. these rulings are framed by critics as part of a political project backed by the Trump administration and its MAGA Republicans—something they describe as an effort to end multiracial pluralistic democracy and create or recreate a White Christian Nation. The argument extends beyond the court decisions themselves to how policy has been applied.

Federal judges. according to the reporting here. have warned that TPS terminations appear motivated by the Trump administration’s racism and racial animus. Katherine Polk. a federal district judge who presided over the challenge to TPS for Syria. said all the terminations “have involved non-European. majority nonwhite populations.” Federal District Judge Ana C. Reyes reached a similar conclusion about TPS for Haiti. holding it was “substantially likely” that “hostility to nonwhite immigrants” is motivating the administration’s decision.

Still, the criticism also turns to how relief is being doled out. The piece says the Trump administration is “welcoming thousands of white South Africans” who claim refugee status because they are being “persecuted” by the Black majority. calling the underlying account a conspiracy theory. It argues that more than 30 years after the end of Apartheid. the white minority—about 7% of the country’s population—still controls more than 70% of South Africa’s wealth and farmland. Columnist John Casey is cited as summarizing the contrast: “So if you are a white farmer from South Africa. this country rolls out the red carpet. If you are a Black Haitian who survived a devastating earthquake and gang violence and built a life here for 15 years. you get a deportation notice. and a big F-U by the United States of America.”.

The reporting also says the Trump administration suspended all refugee resettlement programs except for white South Africans. It adds that the administration was preparing welcome packages for white South African “refugees. ” including an American flag. the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. and a Trump-approved report that minimizes the role of slavery in America’s founding. The package also reportedly includes a children’s book arguing that white people are victims of South Africa’s Black government.

The broader conclusion offered is political, but rooted in the concrete legal outcomes: cruelty made into public policy. The piece points to public opinion data from the Public Religion Research Institute’s 2025 American Values Survey. saying only about 50% of white Christians believe immigrants should have access to basic rights—including due process. It adds that a majority, 57%, of white evangelicals don’t believe immigrants deserve basic rights.

By the time America marks its 250th birthday on July 4. critics argue. the country’s civic myths will face a new test. They cite the Statue of Liberty’s plea—“Give me your tired. your poor; Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”—and describe the national story as a mix of lies. truths and distortions. built on ideals and aspirations that are not consistently honored.

Whatever the sincerity, they say, “compassionate conservatism” has been smothered. George W. Bush. accepting the Republican nomination for president in 2000. described an ideology he called “compassionate conservatism. ” arguing that conservatives should not be seen as heartless and that good politics comes from policies that affect people positively. Eighteen years later. he reflected on the phrase and said he felt compelled to use it because people hear “conservative” and think heartless. adding that the right conservative philosophies are compassionate and help people. The piece argues that the Trump era and now the Supreme Court’s conservative majority have turned those ideas into their opposite.

It ends with a question framed as a choice America could have made instead: that a different decision—one rooted in values rather than power—could have stopped the nightmare unfolding in the courtroom and, for many families, at the border.

Supreme Court SCOTUS immigration asylum Temporary Protected Status TPS Mullin v. Al Otro Lado Blanche v. Lau Mullin v. Doe lawful permanent residents moral turpitude Refugee Act of 1980 Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Ketanji Brown Jackson