The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump two major immigration victories on Thursday, June 25, 2026.
Both rulings dealt with the administration’s efforts to reduce asylum claims and move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status for some migrants already living in the United States.
The decisions came in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado and Mullin v. Doe, two closely watched immigration cases.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court ruled 6 to 3 that migrants standing in Mexico have not legally arrived in the United States.
That matters because federal law says a noncitizen who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States may apply for asylum.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that a person arrives in the United States only when that person crosses the border.
The ruling reverses a lower court decision that had required border officials to process certain asylum seekers who reached ports of entry but were kept waiting on the Mexican side.
The decision gives the administration more room to use a policy known as metering.
Under metering, border officials limit how many asylum seekers can enter a port of entry for inspection each day when officials say capacity is strained.
The Supreme Court said the law does not require the government to inspect or process a person for asylum while that person remains outside U.S. territory.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissenters warned that the ruling weakens access to asylum for people who reach the border seeking protection.
In Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled that Haitian and Syrian nationals challenging the end of Temporary Protected Status are not entitled to orders delaying those terminations while the cases continue.
TPS protects people from removal when their home countries face war, disaster or other unsafe conditions. It also allows eligible recipients to work legally in the United States.
The Court said the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims tied to the designation or termination of TPS.
Alito wrote that the migrants’ constitutional equal protection claim over Haiti’s TPS termination was unlikely to succeed.
Justice Kagan dissented in the TPS case, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
The dissenters argued that the people challenging the TPS terminations raised serious claims, including claims about procedure and equal protection.
Kagan said the lower courts should have been able to consider whether the administration followed the law before ending protections for Haitians and Syrians.
Together, the decisions give the Trump administration more authority on two fronts.
At the border, officials can turn away some asylum seekers before they physically enter the country without triggering the same asylum processing duties.
Inside the United States, the administration can move closer to ending TPS protections for some groups while legal challenges continue.
The rulings do not end every immigration case tied to these policies. But they remove major legal barriers and mark a significant win for Trump’s immigration agenda.