Recent rulings by a conservative-led Supreme Court have expanded administrative authority over immigration, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands and intensifying deportation efforts.
WASHINGTON, June 26 – Since returning to office last year with a focus on stringent immigration reforms and mass deportations, former President Donald Trump has seen substantial backing from the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has facilitated the advancement of his immigration agenda.
With a 6-3 conservative majority, the Court has largely upheld Trump’s immigration policies impacting both legal and undocumented immigrants, with only minimal dissent from the three liberal justices. The most recent example of this trend was highlighted this week, as the Court issued three ideologically-driven decisions that ease deportation procedures and entry denials, especially impacting individuals who have secured legal status.
Judiciary’s Role in Immigration Policy
Critics assert that these decisions reflect a broader tendency within the judiciary to limit immigrants’ rights, allowing for rapid action by authorities. On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling that removes Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants—a humanitarian designation that permitted these individuals to reside and work in the U.S. due to perilous conditions in their home countries. As a consequence of losing this status, affected immigrants face a daunting choice: risk detention by remaining in the U.S. or return to nations plagued by violence and instability.
Legal experts have indicated that the implications are dire, as these individuals would be sent back into environments deemed unsafe by the U.S. State Department, often characterized by high levels of crime, terrorism, and kidnapping.
Ahiran Aruranantham, an immigration lawyer and researcher from UCLA, noted that the Supreme Court’s recent rulings align with its history of undermining immigrant rights. He emphasized that these decisions serve to bolster the anti-immigration agenda that has been persistently pushed by far-right factions within the political landscape.
Impacts and Rationale Behind Recent Rulings
Legal challenges to Trump’s immigration policies have persisted since his return to the presidency in January 2025. However, the judiciary appears increasingly willing to accommodate his demands for aggressive immigration reforms. Judicial actions have taken the form of what some call “shadow clearances,” where critical rulings are made without adequate procedural transparency and explanation.
For example, courts have enabled the administration’s ability to deport immigrants to nations that are not their own, conduct racially or linguistically biased immigration raids, and rescind humanitarian protections affecting hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Ashley Sanchez, Director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Notre Dame Law School, observed that while immigration laws on the books remain, the Trump administration’s approach maximally restricts both legal and illegal immigration pathways.
The current conservative supermajority on the Court, which was solidified following the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, has increasingly sided with the administration in these immigration cases, diverging from previous precedents.
Birthright Citizenship in Question
As the Court approaches the end of its current term, it has yet to rule on pivotal cases concerning one of Trump’s more controversial immigration proposals: the potential denial of birthright citizenship. During oral arguments held in April, the Court signaled a range of possible outcomes regarding the executive order that could strip citizenship from infants born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Lower courts have responded to similar orders by asserting they violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to most individuals born on American soil. This ensures that a decision from the Supreme Court on this matter could have profound implications for immigration policy in the United States.
As developments unfold, the role of the Supreme Court remains essential in shaping the landscape of U.S. immigration policy, with its conservative majority exhibiting significant influence over the regulations affecting both documented and undocumented immigrants.
