June 25, 2026
The Supreme Court just handed President Trump two big victories when it comes to immigration.
No surprise, both of the rulings came down straight along ideological lines, 6 to 3, with all six conservatives ruling in Trump’s favor and all three liberals ruling against him.
One of the cases had to do with asylum seekers, and the other has to do with immigrants already in the U.S. who have Temporary Protected Status.
Let’s start there.
In 2012, Syrian migrants were granted Temporary Protected Status in the United States because of the “repressive regime,” and in 2010, Haitian migrants were granted TPS status in the U.S. because of a “devastating earthquake” in their country.
Those TPS designations have continued and have allowed hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians to remain in the U.S. and even work here.
But in 2025, President Trump started the process of revoking that Temporary Protected Status for both the Syrians and the Haitians.
Well, a group of Syrians and Haitians sued, saying that action was unconstitutional because the move was based on race, and it was illegal because the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act, basically because they went about it the wrong way.
Lower federal courts agreed with the migrants and temporarily blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with removing the Haiti and Syria TPS status.
But today, the Supreme Court said no. The Syrians and the Haitians are wrong, and the Trump administration can move forward and eliminate their Temporary Protected Status.
Justice Alito wrote for the Court’s majority, saying the Syrians can’t win on their argument that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the TPS law says courts cannot review which groups a presidential administration grants TPS status to and which can be revoked.
And separately, Alito wrote for the conservatives that the Haitians failed at this preliminary stage to prove that any of this was based on race. He said the Trump administration just doesn’t like the TPS program, and that’s not racial.
He wrote, “The current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past.”
But the liberals on the Court absolutely disagree.
They say Trump’s decision to end TPS status for the Haitians and the Syrians absolutely is based on race.
Writing for the dissent, Justice Kagan sided with the Haitians, writing, “The evidence they have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print.”
But the liberals didn’t hesitate.
The dissent quotes several of President Trump’s statements about the Haitians, including when he said this during a debate with Vice President Kamala Harris: “They’re eating the dogs… They’re eating the cats. They’re eating…they’re eating the pets of the people that live [in Springfield, Ohio].”
The liberals also point to this statement from Trump:
“And…”
And this one:
“Why is it we only take people from shithole countries” like “Haiti [and] Somalia”? “Why cannot we have some people from Norway [and] Sweden?”
Kagan writes, “The majority briefly replies that those remarks are not ‘overtly racial.'”
Separately, the liberals say the majority is wrong. The courts can review the TPS program through the Administrative Procedure Act.
So now, with today’s ruling, President Trump and his administration can not only finish the process of revoking TPS for the Haitians and the Syrians who have lived and worked in the U.S. for years, but likely it will allow the Trump administration to eliminate TPS protections for several other immigrants from other countries the State Department considers “highly dangerous.”
The other immigration win the Supreme Court handed Trump this morning deals with asylum seekers.
Again, in a 6-to-3 ruling, all the conservatives said that President Trump can resume a policy that says migrants who arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border are not entitled to apply for asylum in the United States.
U.S. border agents can absolutely turn them away before they step foot in the country and not even consider their asylum claim.
Federal law says people may seek asylum in the U.S. if they fear persecution based on reasons including political opinion, race, and religion.
But today, the Supreme Court basically said they have to physically be in the United States before they can even attempt to claim asylum.
The three liberals again dissented, saying the conservatives’ ruling is “illogical.”
Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, questioned how, based on this decision, migrants who are seeking asylum can ever be granted asylum in the U.S.
She says the Trump policy does not allow migrants to step foot on U.S. soil in order to be granted asylum because they’re in the country illegally. But today’s ruling says migrants can’t seek asylum at the border because they haven’t stepped foot in the country.
It’s a Catch-22.
She writes, “The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die.”
Read the TPS ruling & dissent here.
Read the asylum ruling & dissent here.
Trump talking about Haiti Aids here.
Trump at debate here.
Trump shithole countries here.
