Supreme Court Hands Trump Big Wins on Immigration Policies

A divided Supreme Court is handing the Trump administration two big wins in connection with its restrictions on immigration.The justices split 6-3 Thursday on both cases, with the three liberal members of the court dissenting from the conservative majority.In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court said a migrant who is stopped on the Mexican side of the American border has not arrived in the country as it relates to the Immigration and Nationality Act. The act states that someone who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum.Customs and Border Protection started — during the Obama administration — turning back asylum seekers before they crossed into America because there were too many people to process in a day. President Trump continued that policy in his first term. The Department of Homeland Security set up a “metering” system to limit the number of arriving noncitizens that could be allowed across the border to apply for asylum.The decision overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling that held that noncitizens who were turned away had “arrived in” the United States and therefore could apply for asylum.Justice Samuel Alito stated that the case was a “straightforward” question of the meaning of “arrives in” when the person is still in Mexico.“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in‘ a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place,” Justice Alito wrote in the court’s opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion to criticise the lower court ruling. “First, the District Court appeared to effectively grant the classwide injunctive relief that Congress has prohibited in this context,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Second, the relief that the District Court provided may well have unconstitutionally infringed on the President’s inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country,” his opinion continued.Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a lengthy dissent and was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “The Court’s illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: ‘in.’ Words, however, must be read in context and with attention to how they fit into the statute as a whole,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.Justice Sotomayor took the rare step to read her dissent from the bench, saying the majority opinion “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”The metering policy is not currently in use, but the Trump administration said it wanted the ability to reinstate it if needed.The second case, Mullin v. Doe, involved the Trump administration’s decision to end the Temporary Protected Status program for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Syria and Haiti. Congress created the program in 1990 to provide short-term humanitarian relief for non-citizens who cannot safely return to their home countries due to war or natural disaster.In a 6-3 decision, the justices reversed lower court rulings and stated that Mr. Trump had the authority to end the protections. “Although designed to afford ‘temporary’ relief, TPS designations in practice have often lasted for decades,” Justice Alito noted in the majority opinion.Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion stating that the plaintiffs in the suit had a “meritless” equal protection claim and the lower court didn’t even have jurisdiction in the case.Justice Kagan wrote a dissent and was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. “There is no dispute that the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent postponement of the TPS decisions,” Justice Kagan wrote.The president has attempted to end the protections for people from more than a dozen countries. The opinion is expected to clear legal challenges involving the other countries. “The T in TPS stands for TEMPORARY, yet many of these designations become de facto amnesty. This is a win for the rule of law and common sense,” a Department of Homeland Security lawyer, James Percival, stated in an X post.

Supreme Court Hands Trump Big Wins on Immigration Policies

Supreme Court Hands Trump Big Wins on Immigration Policies

More from the New York Sun

‘An Eye For an Eye’ Puts Justice to the Test in Tehran

Mamdani, Targeting ‘Big Companies Like Amazon,’ Threatens Small Delivery ‘Subcontractors’ and Consumers

Trump Media Posts $644M in Combined Losses, but Paid Access Service for Wall Street Traders Draws Subscribers

Surprise Federal Court Hearing in Luigi Mangione Case Raises Speculation on Possible Plea Deal

Ends Justify Means for Today’s Unprincipled Leftists, Who Promise To Upend the Constitutional Order

Drunk History? America Could Avoid Repeating Excesses of Covid, BLM by Heeding Lesson From Ancient Persia

Abdul El-Sayed’s Success Is Owed to Western Values and American Meritocracy That He Seeks To Abolish

Lily Rabe Brings Summer Magic to Shakespeare’s ‘Winter’s Tale’

More from the New York Sun

‘An Eye For an Eye’ Puts Justice to the Test in Tehran

Mamdani, Targeting ‘Big Companies Like Amazon,’ Threatens Small Delivery ‘Subcontractors’ and Consumers

Trump Media Posts $644M in Combined Losses, but Paid Access Service for Wall Street Traders Draws Subscribers

Surprise Federal Court Hearing in Luigi Mangione Case Raises Speculation on Possible Plea Deal

Ends Justify Means for Today’s Unprincipled Leftists, Who Promise To Upend the Constitutional Order

Drunk History? America Could Avoid Repeating Excesses of Covid, BLM by Heeding Lesson From Ancient Persia

Abdul El-Sayed’s Success Is Owed to Western Values and American Meritocracy That He Seeks To Abolish

Lily Rabe Brings Summer Magic to Shakespeare’s ‘Winter’s Tale’