Immigration-Related Supreme Court Decisions in 2026 — and What Comes Next
- 2 days ago
- 7 min read
The U.S. Supreme Court decided three important immigration and citizenship-related cases in 2026. In this article, we break down the cases, the majority opinions, and the dissenting opinions of Mullin v. Doe, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, and Trump v. Barbara.
Summary and opinions of the 2026 Temporary Protected Status case
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was created by statute in 1990 and allowed foreign nationals into the U.S. who could not safely return home due to dangers in their home countries. Similar processes existed from 1960 onward, but TPS made the process law.
In 2010, Haitians were first granted TPS following a catastrophic earthquake, and in 2021, TPS was reissued for gang-related violence and human rights abuses occurring in Haiti at the time. In 2012, Syrians were granted TPS based on the government’s brutal repression of the population under leader Bashar al-Assad.
In 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued notice that TPS for Syrian and Haitian nationals would terminate. In two separate lawsuits, seven Syrians and five Haitians filed to stop the termination. Both cases asserted that the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Haitian case also argued that the termination violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it was motivated by race. The district courts in each case granted interim relief and paused the termination of TPS for Syrian and Haitian nationals until the cases had been decided.
DHS appealed, and the Supreme Court consolidated the two cases, rendering a decision on them together.
The Supreme Court allowed the federal government to move forward with ending TPS for Syria and Haiti. The court held that the TPS statute does not permit judicial review of any TPS-related decision of the Secretary of Homeland Security. In effect, the court held that the language of the statute does not allow any court to review termination of TPS.
Concerning the equal protection argument, the court found that the “scandal[ous]” language used by the president and the secretary of Homeland Security is “insufficient to show that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was based on the race of the Haitian people.” The court therefore concluded that the parties’ constitutional rights were not violated by the termination.
Three justices disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision and wrote a dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinions do not become law; rather, they’re a way for the justices to go on record about why they disagree with the majority. The dissenting justices in this case argued that the TPS statute does permit judicial review of whether the secretary of Homeland Security adhered to required procedures. They argued that courts can review whether the mandated procedures were followed, even if the ultimate decision of whether to terminate a TPS designation is not reviewable. The dissent found that the secretary of Homeland Security was required to consult with various agencies about whether the home countries’ conditions were safe, and that the secretary failed to do so.
The dissent also argued that a racially discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation, even if it was not the sole factor, and the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated.
Summary and opinions of the 2026 asylum case
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) permits certain individuals to apply for asylum when they arrive in the U.S. Asylum is a legal immigration status that allows immigrants to work legally and eventually apply for permanent residency. Immigrants who pass through required procedures such as the “credible fear” interview are permitted to stay in the U.S. while they apply for asylum.
Beginning in 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) began restricting people from crossing from Mexico into the U.S. to claim asylum — a process called “metering.” CBP officials sat outside of arrival halls, bridges, and turnstiles on the border to stop asylum seekers from proceeding to CBP desks. CBP claimed that metering was intended to cap the number of daily asylum seekers due to resource limitations.
The immigration advocacy organization Al Otro Lado filed suit as a class action, arguing that metering blocked people from claiming legal asylum as authorized by the INA. The district court decided in favor of asylum seekers, holding that the government violated the INA by preventing people from accessing the border where they could begin the asylum process. The case was appealed up to the Supreme Court.
The majority decision held that individuals who presented themselves at the U.S. border but had not yet been permitted to enter the U.S. had not yet “arrived” in the U.S. and were not entitled to the asylum process of the INA. The court held that a person has “arrived” in the U.S. only once he or she crosses the border. The majority dismissed the argument that a future administration could shut off all asylum seekers from entry, noting that such a policy is not currently in place and that they “are confident it would be quickly challenged.”
The dissenting opinion painted a different picture of metering based on record evidence. The dissent pointed out that while CBP claimed its intent was to prevent overcrowding at border entries, people were often turned away even when detention facilities were empty. Metering led to dire humanitarian conditions, with camps of people springing up at the border and others instructed to travel through dangerous terrain to access alternate border crossings. Some were turned away and never permitted entry to file their asylum claims.
The dissent contended that the majority’s reading of the INA is too narrow. “Properly read in context,” the dissent argued, “the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ encompasses noncitizens who are in the process of arriving, regardless of where their feet are.” Additionally, the dissent argued that the court “has previously recognized that immigration statutes and procedures should not be construed to ‘create a perverse incentive to enter at an unlawful rather than a lawful location.’”
Summary and opinions of the 2026 birthright citizenship case
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution and a related INA statute guarantee citizenship to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order stating that children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegally or temporarily here are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore do not qualify for citizenship. A class action of parents whose children would be denied citizenship by the order filed suit. The district court paused enforcement, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The majority held that parents within the U.S. are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., and therefore their children are citizens at birth. The historical context of the 14 Amendment includes English common law, which recognized birthright citizenship, and the backlash that resulted from the Dred Scott decision, which rejected birthright citizenship for the children of enslaved persons. Additionally, the Supreme Court previously decided that children of noncitizens were entitled to birthright citizenship in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The majority concluded, “If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the citizenship clause conveyed that design.”
Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the result of the majority decision but wrote an important opinion to express separate thoughts. Justice Jackson also wrote an opinion with separate thoughts, but Justice Kavanaugh’s is especially notable, because unlike the other concurring justices, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the executive order did not violate the 14th Amendment but did violate the related INA statute. Because the INA was passed after the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is clear Congress chose to adopt Wong Kim Ark’s holding on birthright citizenship. Justice Kavanaugh argued that the 14th Amendment, however, has a more complicated history and that it is reasonable to add exceptions to birthright citizenship for the children whose parents are illegally or temporarily in the country.
In this case there were three dissenting opinions, written by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.
Justice Thomas argued that the 14th Amendment only guaranteed citizenship to those who are both born and “domiciled” in the U.S., meaning not allowing citizenship for babies born to tourists. Justice Thomas stated in a footnote that he “would reserve for another day the question whether the children of illegal aliens can be domiciled here.”
Justice Gorsuch joined Justice Thomas’ dissent but also chose to specify that he agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark that a child’s parents do not have to be U.S. citizens in order for the child to be born a citizen.
Justice Alito argued that the language of the 14th Amendment should be interpreted identically to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which states that citizenship is granted to those born in the U.S. and not “subject to any foreign power.” He claimed that many children born to parents who immigrated illegally are citizens of the home countries of their parents and thus subject to the laws and duties of those countries.
Immigration reforms requiring congressional action
In its last term, the Supreme Court interpreted U.S. immigration law as providing limited protections for TPS holders and asylum seekers. This means Congress has an opportunity to pass more robust legislation that extends safeguards to vulnerable populations fleeing humanitarian crises and unsafe conditions in their home countries.
One of MWEG’s guiding principles of ethical government states, “People have moral responsibilities to provide succor and relief to their fellow human beings fleeing war, violence, persecution, and natural disasters, regardless of their race, nationality, or religion.” MWEG is committed to advocating for broad, non-discriminatory, and compassionate immigration reforms that include creating permanent legal pathways for TPS holders and humane, fair processes for asylum seekers who reach the U.S. border.
This article was written by Yvette Farnsworth Baker, researcher and writer, with Sherilyn Stevenson, lead researcher and writer for Mormon Women for Ethical Government.
