The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two significant immigration victories on Thursday, June 25, issuing major rulings on the same day that could reshape immigration policy for years to come. In separate 6–3 decisions, the Court allowed the administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Syrian nationals. It cleared the way for the return of the controversial “metering” policy, which limits the number of asylum seekers processed at the southern border. Still pending is the term’s most closely watched immigration case—the administration’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship—with a ruling expected in early July.
The Court’s TPS decision permits the administration to end temporary protections for approximately 350,000 Haitian and 6,000 Syrian nationals living in the United States. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson hailed the ruling as a “major victory,” arguing that TPS was never intended to serve as a pathway to permanent residency. Attorneys representing TPS recipients, however, described the decision as “a heartbreaking day” for vulnerable immigrant communities.
The ruling comes at a particularly striking moment, following reports of a devastating double earthquake in Venezuela that has already claimed at least 164 lives—a reminder that humanitarian disasters have historically been among the primary justifications for granting TPS protections.
In Mulani v. Otro Lado, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court order blocking the federal government’s “metering” policy, which limits the number of asylum applications accepted each day at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the Court should not have taken up the case because the policy had already been rescinded in 2021. Although the policy is not currently in effect, Thursday’s ruling removes a major legal obstacle should the administration decide to reinstate it.
Meanwhile, the most consequential immigration case of the Court’s current term remains unresolved. In Trump v. Barbara, the justices are considering whether children born in the United States to undocumented or certain temporary immigrants can be denied automatic U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
During oral arguments in April, several justices expressed scepticism about the administration’s “domicile” theory. Chief Justice **John Roberts** challenged Solicitor General **Sawyer**, remarking, “It’s the same Constitution,” after the government argued that changing global circumstances justified a new interpretation. President Donald Trump has also publicly acknowledged concerns about the outcome, suggesting on social media that the administration could lose the case. A decision is expected during the first week of July.
On June 5, a federal court in Rhode Island struck down USCIS policies that had suspended the processing of certain immigration applications, providing temporary relief for thousands of applicants.
USCIS continues to apply the more limited 2022 **public charge** rule, under which only direct cash assistance and long-term institutional care are considered in most immigration benefit determinations. However, U.S. consulates abroad have, since February, implemented stricter guidance requiring applicants to demonstrate their ability to pay for medical and healthcare expenses. In addition, visa suspensions affecting citizens of **75 countries**, first announced in January, remain in effect.
A proposed rule that would replace the 2022 public charge standard with stricter eligibility requirements remains under review and could be finalized later in 2026. Legal experts widely expect any final rule to face immediate court challenges.
Immigration attorneys say many families continue to avoid lawful public benefits such as **SNAP** and **WIC** because of widespread misinformation, even though participation in those programs generally does not count against applicants under the current public charge policy.
Immigrant-rights advocates argue that the growing number of court rulings, policy changes, and conflicting legal standards has left millions of immigrant families living in uncertainty. **ACLU** attorney **Cecillia Wang** said, “Everyone born in this country is an American. No politician gets to decide who deserves to be born here.”
Supporters of the administration, however, argue that the Court’s decisions represent necessary steps toward restoring control over unlawful immigration and strengthening border enforcement.
Legal analysts say the Supreme Court’s remaining decisions this term—particularly the pending birthright citizenship case—could define the direction of U.S. immigration policy for years to come, with profound consequences for millions of immigrants and their families.
