Public Reason | Deep Reason

Between June 23 and June 25, the Supreme Court decided three immigration cases, each involving a different legal question. Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau asked what evidence standard a border officer must meet to determine a returning green-card holder is inadmissible. Mullin v. Al Otro Lado asked whether the government's policy of capping daily asylum requests at ports of entry is lawful under federal statute. Mullin v. Doe asked whether federal courts can review challenges to the government's termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a program that allows nationals of certain countries to live and work legally in the United States. All three cases were decided 6-3. This piece explains what each case held, what changes, and what remains the same.

Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau (June 23, 6-3)

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), lawful permanent residents (LPRs), commonly called green-card holders, who travel internationally are generally treated as already admitted to the United States when they return. They do not reapply for admission. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C) lists six exceptions in which the government may treat a returning green-card holder as though they are seeking admission for the first time, subjecting them to a full admissibility determination. One of those exceptions applies when the returning resident has committed certain criminal offenses, and it is that exception at the center of Blanche.

The question in Blanche was what evidence border officers must have before invoking that exception. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had held that officers must have "clear and convincing evidence" that the person committed a qualifying offense before treating the returning resident as seeking admission rather than as already admitted. In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the "clear and convincing evidence" standard applies at removal hearings, the formal proceedings where the government seeks to deport someone, and not at the initial border encounter. A border officer who suspects a returning green-card holder may have committed a qualifying offense can place that person into a formal parole process, rather than re-admitting them directly, without first establishing the suspicion meets the "clear and convincing" threshold. The returning resident then proceeds to a removal hearing.

Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (June 25, 6-3)

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has operated a "metering" policy at ports of entry since November 2016, under which border officers cap the number of asylum seekers inspected each day. Asylum seekers subject to metering must wait on the Mexican side of the border until space becomes available.

Al Otro Lado, an immigration legal aid organization, challenged the policy. Federal law requires the government to consider asylum claims from "any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled that asylum seekers presenting at a port of entry were "arriving" under that statutory language, which would obligate the government to process their claims.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, disagreed and reversed the Ninth Circuit. The INA does not require border officers to inspect an alien who has not yet physically crossed the border. An asylum seeker who attempts to present at a port of entry and is turned back by officers has not legally "arrived in the United States," as the statute requires physical entry. Asylum seekers subject to metering have not crossed, so the government has no statutory obligation to inspect or process their claims. The Court also held that challenges to the metering policy itself are not reviewable by federal courts under the INA's jurisdictional provisions.

Mullin v. Doe (June 25, 6-3)

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a humanitarian immigration program Congress created in the Immigration Act of 1990. The Secretary of DHS can designate a country for TPS when it is experiencing armed conflict, a natural disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. A designation lasts 6 to 18 months and can be renewed while the relevant conditions persist. Nationals of designated countries already present in the United States can apply for TPS, receiving work authorization and protection from removal for the duration of the designation. TPS does not provide a path to permanent residency or citizenship.

The TPS statute includes a provision that limits judicial review. 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) reads: "There is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection."

The Trump administration terminated TPS for Haiti and Syria. The challengers did not contest the administration's general authority to terminate TPS; instead, they argued that DHS had failed to follow required administrative procedures in carrying out the termination. This was a procedural objection, not a challenge to the termination decision itself. The question before the Court was whether the statutory phrase "any determination… with respect to… termination" extends to procedural challenges about how a termination was carried out, or covers only direct challenges to the underlying decision to terminate.

Justice Alito, writing for six justices, held that the statutory language is "clear" and "very broad" and covers procedural challenges as well. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. Justice Kagan argued that a challenge to the procedures DHS used, as opposed to the termination decision itself, falls outside what the statute's language was meant to bar.

The three cases involve different statutes and different legal questions and were decided in separate opinions, not as a consolidated group. What connects them is timing and subject matter. All three were issued in the final week of the term, and each concerns a statutory dispute about the scope of immigration enforcement authority over people already in the United States or seeking to enter.

In each case, the Court was asked to resolve an ambiguous statutory question, and in each case it resolved that ambiguity in the government's favor.

Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau

Supporters contend that the "clear and convincing" standard was properly located at removal hearings, the formal evidentiary proceedings where evidence can be weighed carefully, and not at the border, where officers need flexibility to respond quickly to criminal concerns. Critics argue that the prior standard protected returning green-card holders from being placed into the parole process and detained pending a hearing based solely on an officer's suspicion, without any established evidentiary foundation.

Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

Supporters argue that the statute's plain text requires physical presence in the United States before an asylum obligation is triggered, and that managing port capacity is a legitimate operational decision that belongs to the executive. Critics argue that metering converts a statutory right to request asylum into a queue controlled entirely by executive discretion, with no recourse in court for people turned away.

Mullin v. Doe

Supporters argue that Congress made its intent clear by writing a review limitation directly into the TPS statute, and that the Court correctly honored that legislative choice. Critics argue that eliminating court review of procedural challenges removes a check that was available even when the underlying policy decision was not in dispute. The challengers in Mullin v. Doe accepted the administration's authority to terminate TPS but argued DHS had to follow its own administrative rules in doing so. The Court rejected that narrower argument as well.

Roughly 1.3 million people from 17 countries currently hold TPS, according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The largest groups are approximately 350,000 Haitian nationals, whose work authorizations begin expiring July 1, and approximately 6,000 Syrian nationals. Following the ruling, DHS issued a statement covering both groups, and Secretary Mullin told CNN on June 28 that TPS holders should seek permanent residency or leave the country.

For many TPS holders, neither option is straightforward. TPS does not itself provide a path to a green card. Adjusting to lawful permanent resident status generally requires a qualifying family or employment relationship, and the applicant must have entered the United States legally. Many TPS holders entered without inspection. For those individuals, the path to a green card requires leaving the United States for a consular interview. For those who had prior unlawful presence in the United States before receiving TPS, leaving would result in a prohibition on re-entering the country for up to ten years under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B).

For Blanche, the affected population is larger and the impact more diffuse. Roughly 12 million lawful permanent residents currently live in the United States, according to DHS statistics. Those who travel internationally and who have any criminal history, including arrests that did not result in conviction, may encounter a border officer who places them into the parole process rather than re-admitting them directly, triggering a removal hearing.

Congress created TPS in the Immigration Act of 1990 to replace an earlier discretionary program called Extended Voluntary Departure. Under the current framework, the Secretary of DHS can designate a country for TPS when that country is experiencing armed conflict, an environmental disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. A designation lasts for a period of 6 to 18 months and can be renewed when the relevant conditions continue.

Nationals of a designated country who are already in the United States can register for TPS. Registration grants work authorization and protection from removal for the length of the designation. A person holding TPS is in a lawful nonimmigrant status, meaning they are legally present and authorized to work, but TPS does not lead automatically to a green card or citizenship.

When a designation ends, whether by expiration or termination, TPS holders revert to whatever immigration status they held before the designation. For many, that is no lawful status.

One question the majority did not resolve: whether constitutional claims remain reviewable despite the statutory language. The majority's holding addressed non-constitutional challenges: arguments that DHS failed to follow required procedures. It did not address whether a TPS holder raising a constitutional argument, such as a claim that the termination violated due process or equal protection, could still bring that claim in federal court. Lower courts handling future TPS challenges will need to decide whether that door remains open.

For TPS holders seeking to adjust to lawful permanent resident status, the path requires both a qualifying relationship and eligibility to use it. DHS has not announced a wind-down timeline for Syrian TPS holders beyond the July 1 expiration of Haitian work authorizations. A qualifying relationship means a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child who can file a petition, or an employer willing to sponsor the applicant. Many TPS holders have neither. Among those who do have a qualifying family relationship, the wait for a visa to become available, as governed by the State Department's monthly Visa Bulletin, can run from several years to over a decade depending on the category and the applicant's country of birth. And for TPS holders who entered the United States without inspection, the adjustment process itself may be unavailable inside the country, requiring the consular route abroad that triggers the re-entry prohibition described above. Those with no qualifying path face unlawful presence once their TPS expires.

Because all three rulings rest on statutory interpretation rather than constitutional requirements, Congress has the legal authority to change each outcome by amending 8 U.S.C. § 1254a to restore court review of procedural TPS challenges, revising the INA's evidentiary standard for returning green-card holders at the border, or clarifying what "arrival" means for asylum processing purposes. Whether that happens is a separate question. Immigration has been among the most consistently deadlocked policy areas in Congress for two decades. Bills to extend or formalize TPS protections, including versions of the American Dream and Promise Act, which passed the House twice but failed to advance in the Senate, have not cleared both chambers. The current Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster on most legislation; immigration bills have repeatedly stalled at that threshold. The current Republican majorities in both chambers have generally opposed expanding TPS protections, and the administration has framed TPS termination as an enforcement priority.

Several legal questions remain open. The Mullin v. Doe majority addressed only non-constitutional challenges to TPS terminations. It did not decide whether a TPS holder raising a constitutional argument, that the termination violated due process or equal protection, could still bring that claim in federal court. Lower courts will need to answer that question when it arises. Individual immigration detention cases retain habeas corpus as a separate legal avenue that these rulings did not address.

In Al Otro Lado, the ruling eliminates challenges to the metering policy itself, but not to what happens once someone is processed. An asylum seeker who reaches a credible fear interview retains the right to contest a negative finding through the administrative review process and, ultimately, federal court. TPS holders with qualifying family or employment relationships who entered the United States lawfully can still pursue adjustment of status through the standard green-card process.

Together, these cases surface a question the rulings do not answer: who should the country give legal access to, and on what terms? The people at the center of these cases are not undocumented newcomers. They are green-card holders who traveled abroad and tried to return, asylum seekers who presented at official ports of entry, and TPS holders who were formally invited to remain while their home countries were in crisis. That distinguishes the legal questions here from broader debates about undocumented immigration, but it does not resolve the underlying disagreement. The country has legitimate interests in controlling who enters and remains, real constraints on what it can absorb, and international and statutory obligations to people fleeing armed conflict or disaster. Where to draw the line among those competing considerations of security, resources, and humanitarian obligation is the question that sits beneath each of these cases. Courts, Congress, and the executive branch have staked out different positions on it for decades. These rulings shift where the line currently falls. They do not settle where it should.

Public Reason | Deep Reason — Government, unfiltered.