Supreme Court Allows Asylum Turnbacks, Ends TPS for Haitians

In two landmark 6-3 rulings on June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration sweeping victories on immigration policy, ruling that the government can turn away asylum seekers at the border and that federal courts generally cannot review the administration’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. The decisions have sent shockwaves through immigrant communities across the United States and sparked an extraordinary public exchange between Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.

The Asylum Ruling: ‘Turn the Ship Back’

In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the country, effectively blocking them from applying for asylum. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that because asylum seekers are turned away before crossing the border, they have not “arrived in” the United States, and therefore legal protections for asylum seekers have not yet taken effect.

The Obama administration first attempted this policy—known as “metering”—to manage surges at ports of entry, but lower courts blocked it. The Trump administration sought to revive the practice, arguing that the lower courts had deprived the executive branch of a critical tool for addressing border congestion.

Justice Sotomayor, reading her dissent from the bench, invoked the 1939 voyage of the MS St. Louis, a ship carrying more than 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany that was turned away from Cuba, Miami, and Canada. About 250 of its passengers later died in the Holocaust. “Turn the ship back,” Sotomayor said, drawing a direct parallel to the Court’s decision. She added that the ruling “regettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”

The TPS Ruling: A ‘Devastating’ Blow

In a separate case, Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled that the federal law creating the TPS program generally bars courts from reviewing determinations by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end TPS designations for Haiti and Syria. Alito wrote that the statute’s language prohibiting judicial review “is clear, and its plain meaning is very broad.”

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The TPS beneficiaries, Kagan wrote, “ask for only one thing: that they may stay in this country while they continue to litigate their claims. … [T]hey are entitled to that relief, and should not instead be consigned to devastating, and indeed life-threatening, injury.”

The TPS termination is expected to take effect on July 27, 2026. The ruling could also open the door to ending protections for 1.3 million people from 17 countries currently covered by the program.

Fear Grips Haitian Communities

Across the United States, Haitian TPS holders are grappling with the prospect of deportation to a country still reeling from gang violence that has displaced more than a million people. Many have lived legally in the U.S. for decades, have U.S. citizen children, and work in essential caregiving roles.

“I have been living with this internal fear, it’s like preparing for a funeral, just in case I die when going to another country,” a Haitian nurse in Kentucky told the Associated Press. She asked not to be identified for fear of being targeted for deportation. The single mother of four has prepared a will, named a legal guardian for her children, and transferred her properties into their names.

In Springfield, Ohio—a community that became a target during the 2024 campaign when President Trump spread fictional rumors about Haitians eating pets—the ruling has added to years of uncertainty. Viles Dorsainvil, executive director of the Haitian Community Help and Support Center in Springfield, described the panic: “As a Haitian, I always say that life has not been easy for us, nothing has been easy for us and this is another chapter in our life.”

An Unusual Exchange on the Bench

The tension surrounding the rulings spilled into open court in a highly unusual exchange. After Alito finished summarizing the asylum decision, Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench—a practice reserved for cases of deep disagreement. Alito, appearing surprised, responded off the cuff: “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.”

The court later clarified it was a “misunderstanding”—Sotomayor’s chambers had notified Alito’s chambers, but Alito did not fully register the notice, according to SCOTUSblog. The exchange drew comparisons to a 2015 moment when Justice Antonin Scalia rebutted a dissent from Justice Stephen Breyer in a death penalty case.

Broader Implications

The rulings represent a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy and executive power. The asylum decision legitimizes “metering,” which critics say forces asylum seekers into dangerous conditions in Mexican border cities and may push desperate individuals toward more hazardous crossings between ports of entry. The TPS decision sharply limits judicial oversight of executive branch immigration decisions, even in cases where challengers allege racial discrimination.

Advocates warn of severe humanitarian consequences. “People will die as a result of this decision, and there is simply no excuse for this narrow interpretation of the statute,” said Melissa Crow of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, as reported by Democracy Now!.

What to Watch For

The Supreme Court is expected to issue additional major rulings in the coming days, including decisions on birthright citizenship and presidential power to fire independent agency board members. Meanwhile, TPS holders and their advocates are exploring remaining legal avenues, and questions remain about whether Congress might take legislative action to protect the hundreds of thousands of people whose legal status in the U.S. now hangs in the balance.