The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two wins on their immigration policy in the decisions issued on Thursday.
Noem v. Al Otro Lado
The first case hinges on the interpretation of U.S. Code 1157, which says an “alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” has the right to apply for asylum.
After an influx of Haitians came to the United States seeking asylum in 2016, the Obama administration adopted “a practice that allowed CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) to prevent aliens without valid travel documents from entering the United States,” called metering, per court filings.
In 2018, the first Trump administration formalized the policy in a memorandum that said CBP officers “‘may elect to meter the flow of travelers’ when appropriate to ensure ‘security,’ ‘safe and sanitary conditions,’ and ‘orderly processing.’”
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group, and 13 asylum-seekers took the memorandum to court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the immigration advocates.
The federal government then appealed to the Supreme Court after the lower court declined to rehear the case.
The core debate during oral arguments in March was how to interpret “arrives.” The federal government argued that the language means a person needs to be physically within the boundaries of the United States, whereas the attorney for Al Otro Lado argued that “arrives in” means at the country’s points of entry.
In his Thursday opinion, which was joined by the other justices in the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the question of the case is “straightforward” and that “arrives” in the context here should be interpreted as “an ordinary-meaning reading.”
He continued, “A person arrives in a destination when he enters within its area—not before. Everyday examples confirm that understanding. A running back does not arrive in the end zone when he reaches the 1-yard line. A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door. An army does not arrive in a city by encamping outside its walls. And a letter does not arrive in a mailbox while it remains in the mail carrier’s hand just inches away.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
She called the majority’s opinion an “illogical interpretation” that is “fixated” on the word “in.”
“The majority ignores the statutory context and history, not to mention the longstanding position of the Executive Branch, all of which show that any noncitizen arriving at our doorstep and seeking admission must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum, regardless of whether her foot has crossed the threshold,” she wrote. “Because the Court today blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution, despite the detailed inspection and asylum system that Congress enacted and commands, I respectfully dissent.”
Mullin v. Doe
The second immigration case the Supreme Court ruled on greenlit the federal government’s ability to remove temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian refugees.
In another 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the justices paused lower-court rulings that blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary protected status, or TPS, for refugees from the two countries.
Under former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Syria no longer met the conditions for TPS status in September of last year, and Haiti’s was terminated in November.
Seven Syrian nationals sued in the Southern District of New York, citing the Administrative Procedure Act to stop the termination, and five Haitian nationals sued in the District Court for the District of Columbia, also citing the APA, and accused the termination of violating their constitutional right to equal protection because it was motivated by race.
The court held that the TPS statute explicitly says there is “no judicial review” of the DHS secretary’s decision regarding the designation, extension, or termination of TPS for a country.
The majority rejected the lower courts’ reasoning that they could still review whether DHS followed proper procedures, such as adequately consulting other federal agencies.
Alito said the TPS statute language “is clear, and its plain meaning is very broad.”
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services posted the following on X after the ruling came out:
In a dissenting opinion written by Kagan and joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, she wrote that “both sets of plaintiffs ask for only one thing: that they may stay in this country while they continue to litigate their claims. For all the reasons given, they are entitled to that relief, and should not instead be consigned to devastating, and indeed life-threatening, injury.”