Two New Supreme Court Rulings Have Reshaped Immigration Law: Here’s What You Need to Know.

By Melanie Shapiro, Esq.  |  June 28, 2026

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two major rulings. Together, they will affect hundreds of thousands of immigrants across the country — including many of my own clients. On June 25, 2026, the Court decided Mullin v. Doe. That case deals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Syrian nationals. The Court also decided Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, which addresses how border officials treat asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Both decisions came down 6–3. Both are significant losses for immigrants and their advocates.

Do you or a loved one hold TPS? Are you applying for asylum? If either ruling affects you, I want to walk you through what changed, why it matters, and what to do right now.

1. Mullin v. Doe: TPS for Haiti and Syria

What is TPS?

Congress created Temporary Protected Status in 1990. It protects people from countries facing war, natural disaster, or other extraordinary conditions that make return unsafe. TPS lets people live and work in the U.S. legally while those conditions persist. Haiti has held a TPS designation since the devastating 2010 earthquake. Syria has held one since 2012 because of its civil war.

What did the Court decide?

In 2025, the Department of Homeland Security moved to end TPS for both Haiti and Syria. Lower courts blocked those terminations. They found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  likely skipped procedures Congress requires — including a proper review of current country conditions. The Supreme Court reversed those lower courts. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 6–3 majority opinion. The Court held that the TPS statute bars federal courts from reviewing most challenges to DHS’s termination decisions. In practical terms, even if DHS skipped required steps, courts generally cannot step in to stop it.

This ruling directly affects roughly 350,000 Haitian nationals and several thousand Syrian nationals. It also creates uncertainty for TPS holders from other countries, including El Salvador, Ukraine, Honduras, and Venezuela, by more broadly limiting judicial review of TPS terminations.

What this means for you

• Do you hold TPS based on Haiti or Syria? Expect your status and work authorization to end on a timeline DHS will announce, likely within weeks.
• Do you hold TPS from another country? This decision does not end your status today. But it gives DHS much wider latitude to terminate TPS designations, with little ability for courts to intervene.
• Do you have another path to legal status — through a family member, a pending asylum claim, employment-based sponsorship, or otherwise? Explore it now.
• Losing TPS does not mean you must leave the country immediately. But it does mean losing your work permit and protection from removal. Timing matters.

2. Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: Asylum Seekers at the Border

What was this case about?

For more than a century, federal law has required immigration officers to inspect anyone who arrives at a U.S. port of entry. For decades, the law has also allowed people who fear persecution to apply for asylum during that process. This case asked a deceptively simple question: Does a person standing at the border in Mexico, asking to be let in, count as someone who has ‘arrived’? Is that person entitled to inspection and a chance to apply for asylum? Or does that right only begin once the person physically crosses onto U.S. soil?

What did the Court decide?

Again, by a 6–3 vote, and again with Justice Alito writing the opinion, the Court sided with the government. The ruling lets border officials turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry before they set foot on U.S. soil. Officials do not have to provide the inspection and screening process that the asylum statute otherwise requires. Justice Sotomayor wrote a sharp dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She warned that the decision lets the government “slam the door shut” on people fleeing persecution, despite the screening system Congress built into the law.

What this means for you

• Are you planning to seek asylum by presenting yourself at a port of entry? Border officials now have clear legal authority to turn you away before inspection or screening.
• This ruling does not eliminate asylum as a form of relief. But it narrows when and how someone can access the process at the border.
• Are you already in the U.S. with a pending or potential asylum claim? This ruling does not directly affect your case. But it reflects a broader trend: courts are giving the government more room to restrict access to asylum.

The Bigger Picture

Both decisions share a common thread: they shrink the role federal courts play in reviewing the executive branch’s immigration decisions. For TPS holders, that means fewer ways to challenge a termination in court — even when the agency may have cut corners. For asylum seekers, that means less room to insist on the screening process Congress wrote into the law. Together, these rulings give the current administration far more latitude to act. They give courts far less power to check that action.

I know it feels unsettling to watch the rules change while your case, your status, or your family’s future hangs in the balance. You are not alone in this. Depending on your situation, you may still have options worth exploring.

If You or a Loved One Is Affected

Do you currently hold TPS? Are you considering an asylum claim? Does a family member face either situation? Reach out to my office. Every case is different, and the right next step depends on your individual circumstances, history, and goals. I am closely tracking how DHS and the immigration courts carry out these decisions in the weeks ahead. I will share updates as they develop.

Law Office of Melanie Shapiro, LLC

378 Washington Street, Suite 2, Westwood, MA 02090

Phone: 781-461-0100  |  Email: info@melanieshapiroesq.com

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every immigration case is unique — please consult with an attorney about your specific situation before making any decisions.