In two 6-3 decisions Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Trump’s Administration’s authority to manage immigration matters, including asylum and Temporarily Protected Status (TPS) policies.
In both Mullin v. Al Otro Lado and Mullin v. Doe/Mullin v. Miot (consolidated), the high court sided with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin, reversing and remanding lower-court decisions. Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored both majority opinions.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court ruled that it is self-evident that a migrant has not “arrived” in the U.S. – unless that migrant has actually arrived in the U.S.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a migrant cannot legally apply for inspection and asylum without being physically present in the U.S. or at a U.S. port of entry.
The Ninth Circuit circumvented this requirement by ruling that an alien is deemed to have “arrived” in the U.S. while standing on the Mexico side of the border, as long as he or she encounters a United States official.
The Supreme Court decision reverses the Ninth Circuit ruling:
“The question in this case is when an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico ‘arrives in the United States’ within the meaning of that phrase in two key INA provisions—8 U. S. C. §§1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1): when the alien is standing in Mexico at the border, or only when the alien crosses the border and enters the country?”
…
“Held: An alien standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border. The INA thus neither entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him.”
The high court cites the American Heritage Dictionary’s definitions of “arrive” and “in” to rule that the phrase “arriving in the United States” carries its ordinary meaning.
“The ruling is another major victory for the Trump Administration in seeking to curb undocumented entries,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a social media post reacting to the decision.
“Justice Sotomayor's dissent comes off as positively Clintonesque in debating what the meaning of ‘in’ is,” Prof. Turley chided in a separate post, adding “Apparently, you can be in the United States without being ‘in’ the United States...”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court also rejected a lower court’s effort to override President Trump’s statutory authority to manage immigration issues, as Justice Clarence Thomas explains in his concurring opinion:
“I write separately to address two further problems with the (lower court’s) decision below. First, the District Court appeared to effectively grant the classwide injunctive relief that Congress has prohibited in this context. See 8 U. S. C. §1252(f ). Second, the relief that the District Court provided may well have unconstitutionally infringed on the President’s inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.
“The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) imposes various restrictions on judicial review of immigration enforcement.”
“[T]he President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country,” Thomas writes, citing precedent:
“So, any statute that forced the President to allow aliens to cross the border against his will would appear to exceed Congress’s enumerated powers, and a court could not enforce it against the President.”
In the case of Mullin vs. Doe, the Supreme Court again affirmed the president’s authority to manage immigration matters, ruling that courts cannot block the Trump Administration from ending TPS for Haitian and Syrian nationals, not even temporarily. Additionally, the court said that the challengers’ race‑discrimination claim in the case “will likely fail.”
“The question presented is whether respondents, who challenge the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for aliens from Syria and Haiti, are entitled to orders postponing the terminations during litigation,” according to the Supreme Court opinion, which provides background on the issue of TPS:
“Congress created TPS in 1990 to provide short-term humanitarian relief for aliens who cannot safely return to their home countries. Although designed to afford temporary relief, TPS designations in practice have often lasted for decades.”
Based on “extraordinary and temporary conditions,” Syria received a TPS designation in 2012 and Haiti received its designation in 2010.
Syria’s TPS designation was granted because refugees were seeking to escape a brutal regime, which has long been replaced by other administrations.
Haiti’s TPS designation was initially approved due to a devastating earthquake that hit the country, killing or injuring hundreds of thousands of residents, causing massive property damage, and severely worsening living conditions.
In the 16 years since the earthquake ended, previous administrations have re-designated TPS for Haiti and repeatedly extended that status.
“The Executive Branch retains discretion over whether to designate a country for TPS. Responsibility for TPS decisions rests with the Secretary of Homeland Security,” the opinion says, noting that “The TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims.”
What’s more, “None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications,” the high court ruled, regarding the constitutionality question.
The TPS statute requires the government to terminate a country’s TPS designation if the DHS secretary determines that the country “no longer continues to meet the conditions for designation.” The secretary is also required to review the necessity of each TPS designation every 18 months.
In Executive Order 14159, titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” Pres. Trump directed his cabinet officers to “ensur[e] that designations of Temporary Protected Status are consistent with the provisions of” the TPS statute and that such designations “are appropriately limited in scope and made for only so long as may be necessary to fulfill the textual requirements of that statute.”
Furthermore, Thursday's decision rules that the Haitians challenging DHS's termination of their TPS status are not entitled to interim relief as the case plays out, since their “equal protection” constitutional claim is unsupportable.
Just as in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the seemingly obvious meaning of a word was challenged by those suing the DHS. At issue was the definition of the word “determination” in a provision of the TPS statute protecting DHS secretaries from judicial interference:
“There 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 under this subsection.”
Once again, Justice Alito references clear dictionary definitions to establish that “determination” denotes the authority to make a firm decision.
“This text is clear, and its plain meaning is very broad,” Justice Thomas agrees in his concurring opinion.
“Big day for the Trump Administration on immigration,” Prof. Turley wrote in a post:
“It is another big one: Mullin v. Doe. The court rules in favor of the Administration in ending the Temporary Protected Status for Syrian and Haitian nationals. Big day for the Trump Administration on immigration in combination with the Mullin v. Al Otro Lado.”
