(TNND) — The Supreme Court delivered two significant immigration rulings favoring the Trump administration on Thursday, yet experts are skeptical about how the justices will address a pending case concerning birthright citizenship next week.
Ernest Sagas, a political and immigration policy expert at Colorado State University, remarked that the issue of birthright citizenship is fundamentally distinct. Law professor Kevin R. Johnson from the University of California, Davis, indicated that the prior decisions concerning temporary protection for immigrants escaping violence and disaster, along with restrictions on asylum procedures at the border, have established that the president holds considerable discretion in shaping immigration policies.
Johnson expressed doubts that the same logic would apply to the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. “While this term hasn’t been favorable for immigrants at the Supreme Court, cases related to birthright citizenship will likely stand apart,” he posited. He anticipates the court will ultimately uphold the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for individuals born on U.S. soil and may decide to invalidate key aspects of executive orders aimed at restricting that right.
Johnson expects a ruling regarding birthright citizenship to be released either on Monday or Tuesday at the latest.
Impact of the TPS Ruling
The authority to designate a country for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security. Established in the 1990s, this program aims to offer refuge to foreign nationals who have fled their homelands due to warfare, natural disasters, or other temporary and extraordinary situations.
Currently, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recognizes twelve countries under this designation. However, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem rescinded TPS designations for Haiti and Syria last year, impacting approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians under temporary protection, based on government statistics.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision permits the government to revoke this protected status at will, meaning that Haitians and Syrians in the U.S. under the TPS program may lose their status, work authorizations, and face deportation. Although officials highlighted the temporary nature of the program, many TPS recipients from Haiti and Syria have resided in the U.S. for several years, with Haiti designated for TPS since 2010 and Syria since 2012.
Johnson highlighted that the TPS Act allows individuals to remain under protection until their home country stabilizes. “The ongoing turmoil in Haiti isn’t just a short-lived crisis. It has persisted for years. So, when should we reconsider Haiti’s status as a TPS country?” he questioned, pointing to a common perception that TPS has evolved into a long-term status for many.
Sagas noted that Haitians and Syrians live with constant uncertainty, aware that their temporary protections could vanish at any moment. Tensions were heightened when Haitian plaintiffs raised concerns about the procedural specifics behind the removal of TPS and alleged that racial bias influenced the decision, which they argued contravened the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, stated that decisions regarding TPS fall largely outside the realm of judicial oversight. He downplayed the allegations of racial bias as likely unfounded.
Border Metering Policies
Another 6-3 decision from the court on the same day permits the current or future presidents to implement measures for border metering. Initially introduced during President Obama’s tenure to address increasing asylum requests, this system was maintained during Trump’s first term but discontinued in 2021.
The metering policy restricts migrants from applying for asylum until they have physically crossed the border, a right available under U.S. law if they can substantiate credible claims of persecution in their home countries. Johnson expressed his discontent with the ruling, asserting, “This is problematic because it implies that the U.S. could construct a barrier just yards from the border, prevent entry, and deny asylum requests.” He argued that Congress likely never envisioned such limitations on asylum seekers seeking refuge.
Sagas criticized the court’s ruling as misaligned with the rule of law and the historical values surrounding immigration, emphasizing a shift in narrative regarding the U.S. border, particularly during the Biden administration, which has shaped a perception of a “chaotic and uncontrolled” border.
Alito also authored the majority opinion for this case, focusing on how the law defines “arrival” at the border for asylum seekers. In his reasoning, he drew a comparison to sports scenarios, depicting people being turned away as players being tackled inches from a goal.
This analogy resonated poorly with critics, including Johnson, who found it inappropriate. “Imagine similar language being used in discussions about death penalty cases or even cases involving white individuals,” he challenged. “There’s a perception that those seeking asylum are merely trying to exploit the system.” Johnson emphasized the importance of recognizing the humanitarian crisis faced by those fleeing violence and the need for a fair application of U.S. asylum laws.
