Supreme Court guts TPS and blocks border asylum seekers

In two 6-3 decisions, the Supreme Court expanded President Trump’s ability to strip Temporary Protected Status and blocked a pathway for certain asylum claims at the southern border—moves migrant advocates say gut humanitarian protections Congress built into U

By the time the Supreme Court’s rulings landed on Thursday, the message was already being felt by people who have spent years—sometimes decades—living under Temporary Protected Status.

In two separate cases decided along the court’s ideological lines, the justices backed the Trump administration in ways that migrant advocates say make it easier to remove protections for people inside the country and harder for asylum seekers to reach the point where they can file claims.

In Mullin v. Doe. the court allowed the administration to strip deportation protections from nearly 400. 000 people—at least 363. 000 Haitians and 7. 000 Syrians—who have lived in the United States under Temporary Protected Status. TPS. as the policy is designed. applies in situations where a person’s home country is especially unsafe. such as because of war or natural disaster.

A second ruling, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, addressed the border. The court ruled that the government could prevent people from claiming asylum on the southern border by blocking them from setting foot on U.S. soil. The case centered on the so-called “metering” policy used by past administrations. in which border guards prevented would-be asylum seekers from crossing into the United States at legal ports of entry. The consequence was simple: without that crossing, asylum seekers would not be entitled to file an asylum claim.

Taken together, the decisions give the administration tools “on both fronts of its war against immigrants,” aimed at people seeking protection at the border and at those already in the interior of the country, where TPS has offered a legal shield against deportation.

Jennifer Gordon, a professor of law at Fordham Law School, said the court’s rulings make the stakes clear.

“When we take this [TPS decision] together with the asylum case. today’s decisions make clear that the Supreme Court majority is giving the administration tremendous leeway to gut humanitarian protections that Congress created and that have been stable in the U.S. for many, many, many years,” Gordon said.

Erika Pinheiro, Al Otro Lado’s executive director, said the border ruling crosses legal and moral lines.

“[The] decision violates international law. as well as the express intent of Congress. which enshrined the rights and obligations of the Refugee Convention into U.S. federal law over 40 years ago. This decision has destroyed the United States’ position as a global leader in promoting the rights of refugees and threatens to serve as a dangerous justification for other countries that unlawfully prevent refugees from crossing borders in search of safety. ” Pinheiro added. “In a world of increasing conflict and climate disaster. this hardening of borders to keep out the most vulnerable is sure to result in many more lives lost.”.

The human cost is part of the reason advocates have framed the decisions as more than courtroom changes.

Kristi Noem. former Department of Homeland Security Secretary. stripped 13 of 17 nations of TPS status last year. offering little to no explanation besides claims that those countries were safe to return to. The State Department. however. has labeled both Syria and Haiti with “Level 4: Do Not Travel” advisories due to consistently unsafe conditions and risks including kidnapping. crime. terrorist activity. civil unrest and limited healthcare.

Advocates argue that sending people back to those countries would expose them to extreme violence.

Experts previously told HuffPost that being returned to Syria and Haiti would expose people to a huge threat of violence. In the border context, they say the dangers can persist even when “metering” is not currently operating.

Even if the metering policy for asylum seekers is not in effect right now. the court’s ruling on Thursday could allow the administration to bring it back whenever it wants. That prospect. advocates warned. could send people in need of asylum protections back to northern Mexico—where. they say. many have faced kidnapping. rape and murder while waiting to try to seek protection under U.S. law.

Rebecca Cassler, one of the lawyers representing immigrants in Al Otro Lado, previously described what happens when people wait.

“We know dozens, hundreds of cases where people were assaulted, kidnapped, tortured, some were murdered, because they were waiting to seek asylum, and they wanted to try to do it in the way that U.S. law sets out,” Cassler said.

The court’s decisions arrived on top of other efforts to narrow asylum and speed removals.

On the southern border. Trump has pursued avenues to effectively end asylum rights. including a Day 1 emergency declaration that referred to migrants at the southern border as “an invasion.” An appeals court ruled against that emergency declaration in April. Both the former Biden administration and the current Trump administration. advocates say. also have limited asylum rights along the border by suspending the processing of asylum claims if daily encounters by border guards reach certain levels.

And earlier in the week. another appeals court blessed Trump’s expanded use of a deportation tool known as “expedited removal.” Under that authority—and Trump’s expanded interpretation of it—immigration agents can arrest and deport people who’ve been in the United States for up to two years rather than 14 days. even if they are living in the interior of the country rather than near the border.

The rules also, in practice, can reduce transparency for people facing removal. The appeals court’s majority ruled that immigration agents didn’t need to inform people they arrest about a rule that provides an exemption if they can prove continuous residency in the United States for at least two years—meaning even people who have the legal right to challenge expedited deportation might not know they can.

Gordon argued that the Constitution should not be read to allow those kinds of limits on due process.

Gordon said the 14th Amendment is clear about there being no law made or enforced that deprives a person of life, liberty, or property, or due process. She also pointed to the amendment’s equal protection language, noting that it bars denying “any equal protection under the law.”

She emphasized that “person” includes citizens and noncitizens alike.

“That ’person’ includes citizens and noncitizens alike,” Gordon said.

In her view, the TPS decision does not simply attack migrants. It also undermines Congress’s work to ensure that international treaties or other protections secured for asylum seekers and immigrants in the United States are enforced.

Experts also raised alarm about how the court handled claims of discrimination tied to race in the TPS case.

In the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito rejected claims that the Trump administration stripped Haitian and Syrian TPS holders of protections because of racial animus. Those claims had cited racist statements from multiple members of the administration. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan quoted the racist statements that Alito omitted.

Alito argued that those remarks did not prove the decision to terminate TPS was racist. He suggested instead that it was unsavory rhetoric and wrote that “many Americans of all races” might acknowledge that countries like Haiti are “unquestionably difficult” places to live given rampant poverty and unrest.

“It’s also in part because it’s not a racial slur anymore because the Supreme Court is going to accept explicit racial slurs by the government because President Trump has degraded the level of our national discourse,” Gordon said.

Kristen Clarke, general counsel for the NAACP, said Alito’s reasoning conflicts with how the Constitution has been interpreted to prohibit legal discrimination based on race since the 19th century.

“At every turn, we see this administration undertaking policy motivated by a toxic combination of racism and xenophobia, intended to dehumanize, diminish, and erase Black people’s presence, our political power and our voice,” Clarke said.

The court majority’s dismissal of racial animus claims has intensified scrutiny because of the scale of the protections at issue and the broader trajectory of U.S. immigration policy.

Pew Research Center data cited in the discussion found 2.6 million asylum applications from unauthorized immigrants in 2025. The Migration Policy Institute noted last year that the majority of refugees coming to the United States in 2025 were from the Middle East and South Asia. about 34%. Latin America and the Caribbean accounted for 32% of refugees seeking to enter the U.S. with East Asia and Europe trailing at 10% and 2%. respectively.

Most asylum seekers are fleeing nations devastated by war, civil unrest, or persecution. As of March 2025, there were an estimated 1.3 million TPS holders across the nation, with the majority of nations represented in Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

For advocates who see the decisions as a turning point, the concern is not only who is affected now, but what those rulings unlock next.

Gordon said that in the wake of Thursday’s decisions, the legal standard that once was set by Congress and the Constitution now appears to be determined by presidential conduct.

“The Supreme Court is going to accept explicit racial slurs by the government because President Trump has degraded the level of our national discourse and so, what was once impermissible as a racial slur, is now just everyday things that people say,” Gordon said.

The court’s “one-two punch” on asylum access at the border and deportation protections in the interior leaves migrant advocates arguing that the humanitarian guardrails Congress built—and that allowed protections to remain stable for years—have been loosened at the highest possible level. with consequences that could reach far beyond the cases before the justices.

Supreme Court Mullin v. Doe Mullin v. Al Otro Lado Temporary Protected Status TPS asylum southern border metering policy expedited removal deportation protections immigration enforcement 14th Amendment NAACP Kristen Clarke Fordham Law Jennifer Gordon Refugee Convention