Well, well, well. The Supreme Court learned the meaning of "Temporary" in "Temporary Protected Status." And, in an even more stunning decision, they also said that Mexico is not "The United States of America," so it's not correct to say that a person in Mexico who tries to enter the United States has "entered the territory of the United States" and is protected by the rights of a person who is already here.
Shocking, I know. Water is wet, too. And the decision reaffirming that will be 6-3 as well, with the liberal justices declaring that we have to ask the water whether it identifies as wet.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, was named in two immigration-related cases whose decisions were handed down by the Supreme Court today. The first and most-watched had to do with whether President Trump could end the Temporary Protected Status for refugees who were taken in during some emergency or another.
Both Haitians and Syrians were given TPS status in response to crises in their home countries; in Haiti, it was the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, now 15 years in the past. For Syrians, it was the now-concluded civil war. The question before the court amounted to whether TPS provided by one president could be terminated by another. Activists argued that TPS is essentially permanent.
The Court, in a 6-3 decision, disagreed.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to remove legal protections from thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants in the United States, meaning they could be subject to deportation.
The court, on a 6-3 vote on ideological lines, ruled in favor of the administration, which asked to continue with its plan to strip Temporary Protected Status from about 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.
Writing for the majority, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said that judges overstepped their authority in second-guessing the administration’s decision. The court also rejected a claim that the decision to remove protections for Haitians was discriminatory.
Last year, the Supreme Court in two separate decisions allowed the Trump administration to revoke the same kind of legal status from 600,000 Venezuelans in the U.S. The Trump administration argued in court papers that those actions set a precedent that lower courts should have applied to the Haitian and Syrian immigrants, too.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the government, wrote that outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decisions on revoking TPS designations are not reviewable in court.
The TPS program, in place since 1990, provides humanitarian relief to people from countries reeling from war, natural disasters or other catastrophes. Recipients have legal status in the U.S. and can apply for work authorization for up to 18 months, subject to extensions.
As usual, the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court because radical federal judges have decided that the president is only allowed to use his powers if they approve of the decision. Rule by judicial fiat is, after all, the only way to save democracy or something. Think of it as the EU model of governance on steroids.
SCOTUS’ support of Trump adm plan to end temporary protected status for Haitians represents another huge blow to DC federal courts. Judge Ana Reyes (Biden) suspended the president’s plan, claiming among other unsubstantiated allegations it represented “hostility to nonwhite… pic.twitter.com/0UihSV0JIZ
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 25, 2026
SCOTUS’ support of Trump adm plan to end temporary protected status for Haitians represents another huge blow to DC federal courts. Judge Ana Reyes (Biden) suspended the president’s plan, claiming among other unsubstantiated allegations it represented “hostility to nonwhite immigrants.”
Her order was then upheld by a 2-1 panel of DC appellate court. Judges Pan and Garcia (Biden) denied Trump administration’s request to overturn Reyes.
Can’t count how many times this has happened to DC judges.
In the second immigration-related decision, the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval to a policy of turning back aliens trying to enter the country illegally at the border. Created under President Barack Obama, the policy was challenged by immigration activists seeking to prevent Donald Trump from using it. After all, the mere DESIRE to enter the United States gives you the right to do so and live here forever.
Again, in a 6-3 decision, the court upheld the policy on the grounds that the United States is the United States and that we can turn people back at the border.
U.S. immigration officials can turn away asylum seekers at the Mexican border, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices greenlit a “metering” policy devised under the Obama administration and expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term, under which Customs and Border Protection agents posted on bridges between Mexico and the U.S. turned back many asylum seekers.
The high court’s ruling overturned lower-court decisions that found Congress intended to permit any immigrant approaching a border checkpoint to file for asylum.
The challenged policy was officially rescinded by the Biden administration in 2021, but most asylum seekers at the border have been thwarted by Biden and Trump edicts even broader than the “metering” program.
The Trump administration had asked the justices to uphold the practice’s legality, calling it “a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border.”
A divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in 2024 that asylum seekers approaching an authorized border crossing are considered to be arriving “in” the U.S. under federal law, entitling them to legal protections even if their applications are initially turned down.
Yes, you read that right. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that Mexico is really the United States, in much the same way that alphabet activists assert that a man who says he is a woman is, indeed, a woman. Where you are is a state of mind, and has nothing to do with the actual borders of states.
Slowly, ever so slowly, the Trump administration is winning these cases. Frankly, most activists likely expect to lose the cases, and are using delaying tactics to slow Trump policies in an effort to wait him out. If they can stop as many Trump policies by taking advantage of activist judges, they can slow the gears of government enough to keep as much legal territory as possible.
Unfortunately, nobody has the will to impeach the judges who engage in ridiculous activism, and hence we have to put up with this nonsense. There is a logic to that hesitation: the fear that radical Democrats will use the precedent to go on an impeachment frenzy next time they are in power.
After all, they are now openly talking about packing the Supreme Court to take complete power over the United States through a judicial coup.
Still, we should applaud these victories and savor them. Take the win, and keep fighting.
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at HotAir, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical Left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.
Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member