column

The Supreme Court tends to hand down its most controversial and political decisions at the end of June, and this year’s batch did not disappoint. In this brief advertorial, we’ll review the three most important decisions with respect to immigration law and migrants: the decision preserving birthright citizenship (Trump v. Barbara), the decision which effectively allowed the Administration to abolish TPS (Mullin v. Doe), and the decision which allowed the Administration to continue to turn away almost all asylum seekers at the U.S. border (Mullin v. Al Otro Lado).

Trump v. Barbara: Birthright Citizenship Lives On

We predicted that the Administration’s attempt to abolish birthright citizenship would fail. We were right, but only just. A bare majority of five justices (Roberts, Barrett, Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan) found that the Trump Administration’s executive order seeking to abolish birthright citizenship by fiat was barred by the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” A sixth (Justice Kavanaugh) concurred in the judgment, but did not find that birthright citizenship was guaranteed to all by the 14th Amendment, instead holding that President Trump’s executive order simply contravened 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies birthright citizenship as a matter of statute.

Birthright citizenship is safe for the foreseeable future, even if there are changes to the court’s composition. Congress is not going to abolish or amend 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), and it is hard to see how a new executive order could make its way before the court before the end of the current President’s term.

Mullin v. Doe: TPS is Doomed, Doomed, Doomed

We offered no prediction on Mullin v. Doe, but, truth be told, we weren’t surprised by the outcome. When the Temporary Protected Status program was enacted, Congress specifically exempted TPS determinations from judicial review. (Yes, Congress can do that!) The statutory bar was fairly stark: “[t]here is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.” The challengers argued that this bar applied only to the substantive decision to designate a country’s designation or terminate a country’s TPS designation, so the courts could review procedural steps taken along the way toward a designation. That mattered here, because the Trump Administration is (a) very bad at following proper procedures, and (b) very bad at concealing its malignancy from the public. As Justice Kagan’s dissent points out, the President of the United States has offered the following opinions about Haitians: they eat the cats and dogs of the good people of Springfield, Ohio, they “probably have AIDS,” Haiti is a “shithole country,” which is “filthy, dirty, and disgusting.” But Justice Kagan’s dissent was cosigned by only two other Justices – Sotomayor and Jackson.

Only two countries were directly affected by the decision in Mullin v. Doe – Syria and Haiti. But every other TPS-designated country (Burma, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen) is either already terminated or living on borrowed time. There is, in our judgment, no way that TPS can survive for any country if the Administration declines to extend it. (more…)

In the months of November and December 2025, the Trump Administration took four related actions: (1) they froze all adjudication of applications for nationals subject to a related travel ban, (2) they announced that being from one of those countries would be a ‘significant negative factor’ in benefits adjudication, (3) they froze adjudication of all affirmative asylum claims, and (4) they announced a ‘re-review’ of all immigration benefits granted to people from a list of thirty-nine countries since the beginning of the Biden Administration. We told you, as these policies were introduced, that they were going to be controversial – we told you that litigation would put an end to them, because “[s]ome federal judge, somewhere, will say ‘enough.'”

Last week, a federal judge, John J. McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, said “Enough!” in vigorous language, striking down all four policies in a strongly worded decision. The purpose of this advertorial is to explain: (1) why the federal district court took this action, (2) what real-world effects we expect this to have, and (3) what the Trump Administration’s prospects on appeal are.

First, what did Judge McConnell’s decision say?

In short, Judge McConnell flatly rejected the government’s claim that its decisions were non-discriminatory and rooted in a reasonable desire to ensure security and accurate adjudication. It’s worth lingering over the language that Judge McConnell employs in his introduction.

“But the rule of law has to apply to everyone equally and, as evident here, USCIS has neither “followed the law” nor “done things the right way.” Indeed, the agency has violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering, as well as the administrative laws that govern the agency’s actions. In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of “national security” that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making. In legal terms, that means USCIS’s actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

What Judge McConnell means, more or less, is that the Trump Administration can’t use the administrative apparatus of USCIS to accomplish its policy goals without either passing a statute or promulgating a regulation. As a reminder, the Trump Administration didn’t even try to promulgate a regulation concerning any of the above memoranda, it simply announced them, one ukase after another.

Now, what will the Trump Administration do?

Our prediction is cynical: The Trump Administration will do nothing. They’ll slow-walk any compliance with Judge McConnell’s order while they file an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an emergency stay of Judge McConnell’s order. If they lose at the First Circuit, they’ll seek another form of emergency relief, via the Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket.” Only if the Administration loses twice on appeal will they even contemplate compliance with this order.

What should applicants for benefits affected by these newly unfrozen orders do? The right answer depends on the individual case. The great majority of applicants, we suspect, will choose to wait and see what the outcome of the government’s appeal will be. We’ll report on that, too, when the next round of litigation is concluded.