The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 ruled in favor of President Donald Trump's restrictive asylum policies that faced strong opposition from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and some other Catholic advocacy groups.
One ruling allows the Department of Homeland Security to end "temporary protected status" for Haitians and Syrians, who can now be deported. The other allows the government to turn away asylum seekers at the southern border by limiting the number of claims they will process each day.
Both cases were decided 6-3. All of the justices who sided with the majority were appointed by Republican presidents and each dissenting justice was appointed by Democratic presidents.
Anna Gallagher, the executive director of Catholic Legal Immigration Network, said in a statement to EWTN News that both decisions are "devastating for our clients, and for those of us who accompany vulnerable immigrants through the legal system."
"As Catholics, we believe in a God who weeps for our suffering, who is concerned for the fall of the sparrow, for the least of these," she said.
"And so we, too, weep for our clients whose asylum rights are restricted or who fear return to immediate life-threatening conditions because of this court decision."
"We walk with them as legal advocates, seeing the injustice of our laws play out firsthand. We know that today is a dark day for many people we have come to know and care for — including legal residents of this country, beloved members of our community."
Protections for Haitians, Syrians gone
The Supreme Court decision in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, which were consolidated into one case, ensures that the government's decision to terminate temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians will be in effect. The ruling strips them of legal protections for work authorization and prevention from deportation.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion, said that the law itself generally gives the government broad discretion in determining whether to approve, extend, or terminate protected status for a given country. The ruling found that all non-constitutional claims are not subject to judicial review.
Haitians protected under the protected status argued that the policy terminations discriminated against people based on race. In its ruling the Supreme Court stated that both the protected designations and the terminations come from a racially diverse collection of countries.
"They claim that TPS has not been terminated for any predominantly white nation, and they therefore infer that the reason for the termination of the TPS designation for Haiti was having a predominantly nonwhite population," the opinion stated.
The plaintiffs' "definition of a predominantly non-white nation is broad, apparently encompassing major European countries," the ruling said.
"It may be that only the termination of a TPS designation for a Nordic or Germanic country would be sufficient in their judgment to show that the Secretary's unbroken record of TPS terminations was race-neutral," the decision added.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissenting opinion, said she believes the court erred in ruling that all non-constitutional claims are barred from judicial review, arguing that the court should be able to determine whether the secretary followed the proper procedures in deciding to terminate protected status.
She also argued that Trump's comments show that race played a role in the decision to end the Haitian protected status designation.
"The majority briefly replies that [his] remarks are not 'overtly racial,' … but it is hard to know what that means," Kagan wrote. "Haitians are Black. …The references — of filth, disease, and primitiveness — are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes."
Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies and a former immigration judge, told "EWTN News Nightly" on June 25 that the ruling essentially solidifies that "no one has the ability to sue when the government decides it's going to terminate TPS status."
He said the protected status is meant to provide temporary legal status for someone escaping a danger in their country. He said some protected designations "have been in place … for more than a quarter of a century," even for "events that occurred decades ago" and are no longer impacting the country.
The U.S. bishops had urged the government to extend protected status, including for Haitians, who are a majority Catholic community.
"We are deeply concerned about the plight of our Haitian brothers and sisters living in the United States," Bishop Brendan J. Cahill, chair of the bishops' committee on migration, and Bishop A. Elias Zaidan, chair of the committee on international justice and peace, said in a joint statement in February.
"There is simply no realistic opportunity for the safe and orderly return of people to Haiti at this time," they said.
Asylum seekers at the border
The decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado dealt with the "metering" policy that started under former President Barack Obama and is being enforced by Trump, which the court ruled is a lawful policy.
Under the policy, the government can limit the number of asylum claims it chooses to process in a day and can turn people away from entry into the country when they approach the southern border.
The case centered on an asylum seeker's right to apply for asylum when he or she "arrives in the United States." The ruling, also authored by Alito, states that the right only applies when the person has already entered the country and it does not give legal protections for someone who is seeking entry into the country but has not yet been allowed in.
"We begin by considering what the phrase 'arrives in the United States' means when used in everyday speech," the ruling states. "That meaning is clear. A person arrives in a geographic location only when he enters it."
The ruling states that if Congress wanted to extend that right to anyone who approaches the border or seeks entry into the country, it would have written the law to clearly state that.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, arguing that the ruling allows the executive branch to "circumvent … mandatory procedures by having U. S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U. S. soil."
"Words … must be read in context and with attention to how they fit into the statute as a whole," Sotomayor wrote.
"The majority ignores the statutory context and history, not to mention the longstanding position of the Executive Branch, all of which show that any noncitizen arriving at our doorstep and seeking admission must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum, regardless of whether her foot has crossed the threshold," she said.
Arthur told "EWTN News Nightly" that the decision essentially "narrows the ability of people who haven't actually entered the country … to apply for asylum."
"You're not subject to United States law … until you've actually crossed into this country," he said.
The U.S. bishops petitioned the Supreme Court to rule against the policy and require the government to process all asylum claims.
"The turnback policy is not just a flawed piece of statutory interpretation but an historical aberration — one that, during the period it was enforced, left vulnerable asylum seekers stranded in encampments on the border while lawfully trying to seek asylum at a port of entry," the bishops wrote.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the most significant immigration case before it, Trump v. Barbara, which will decide the extent of birthright citizenship in the United States.
This story was updated at 1:50 p.m. ET on June 25, 2026 with further analysis and expert comment.
