The Supreme Court’s 2026 term ended on a positive note earlier this week with a significant victory that reaffirmed the Constitution’s promise of birthright citizenship. However, the term as a whole has been a disaster for our communities, and even the birthright citizenship case was not a total victory as the administration and members of Congress look for ways to bypass the Constitution. There were many cases which the Court refused to hear that preserved inhumane enforcement actions while most of those that it did hear caused significant damage to the idea that immigrants should be treated with humanity.
The Court actually started on a positive note in February with Geo Group v. Menocal. In this suit, a former detainee at a detention center run by the for-profit Geo Group sued over work policies for detainees, claiming that the policies violated both federal anti-forced labor laws and state laws around unjust enrichment. Geo Group tried to escape liability by claiming that their contract with the federal government “authorized and directed” such actions, granting them immunity. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the contract did not “authorize and direct” such policies, and sent the case back to the District Court. The administration responded earlier this month by issuing new detention standards clarifying the administration’s view that detainees who participate in such work programs are not considered to be employees and are not protected against policies that amount to forced labor. This move by the administration effectively shields private prison companies from lawsuits challenging the inhumane conditions of work programs in detention.
The following month, the Court rejected an appeal by an asylum seeker and his family, continuing a policy of extending great deference to the government in such decisions. In Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, a family had fled El Salvador because of death threats against the father including the shooting of his two half-brothers. The threats had forced the family to move within El Salvador numerous times before coming to the US. Despite the facts, which were not challenged, the immigration judge in the case found that the facts did not equate to “persecution” or a “well-founded fear of persecution” because threats against the asylum seeker arose when he would return to his home town. Appeals to both the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling. The Supreme Court took on the case because circuit courts could not come to an agreement on how to handle cases such as this. The Court’s unanimous decision gives great deference to the decisions of immigration judges (part of the administration) over those of the courts, and severely restricts the ability of appellate courts to review the factual basis for such decisions.
The Court finally released a number of immigration-related cases in June, most of which went against immigrants. In Blanche v. Lau, the Court allowed the Department of Homeland Security greater latitude in how they treat green card holders returning from abroad. This case revolved around a Lawful Permanent Resident who had been charged, but not convicted, of an offense. While the charges were pending, he travelled home for a visit, but upon returning to the US, he was treated as though he was applying for admission rather than someone who had already been admitted as an LPR. He was paroled into the country, and after he took a guilty plea to the criminal charge, he was placed in removal proceedings and charged with inadmissibility instead of deportability, making it easier for the government to remove him. Although an appellate court sided with the individual, the Supreme Court found that a border officer does not need “clear and convincing” evidence that an LPR has committed a crime, giving individual border patrol officers greater authority in making their own decisions on who to allow into the country.
In their next case, issued a couple of days later, the Court again gave greater powers to border patrol officers while weakening our nation’s humanitarian protections. For decades, anyone who has approached the US border has been able to make an asylum claim, even if they have not physically entered the US yet. This has been a part of the process by which a border officer “inspects” an individual for potential admission to the country. However, in Mullin v. Otro Lado, the Court rejected this long-standing process and effectively held that asylum seekers must already be physically in the United States in order to be eligible to apply for asylum. As a practical matter, this means that anyone who tries to make an asylum claim at a port of entry may be denied for no reason.
The same day, the Court released its decision in Mullin v. Doe, a shocking ruling which allowed the administration to terminate TPS for Syria and Haiti and opened the door for the administration to terminate all TPS determinations. Plaintiffs in the case argued that the Trump Administration ended TPS not based on any rational decision making process, but rather out of very clearly stated bigotry. The Court’s majority opinion brushed away the record of racism from various administration officials, dismissing such racism as simply part of the “political discourse”. The decision means that many with TPS, beyond Syrians and Haitians, will lose their TPS status and their ability to work in the US later this month and will be expected to return to countries undergoing severe political and security disruptions that put everyone at risk.
Earlier this week, the Court released the last of its decisions for the term including Trump v. Barbara, which upheld the Constitutional promise of birthright citizenship. However, even this positive decision is tainted. Justice Gorsuch, in his opinion agreeing with the majority, attempts to weaken this promise by arguing that federal law – not the Constitution – protects birthright citizenship and that Congress is free to change the law at any time. He provides no actual support for this position, but members of Congress are already taking up this argument and promising to change the law. At the same time, the Trump Administration has announced that it will start charging pregnant women in the US with fraud while looking into ways it can bar pregnant women from entering the country.
This was a disappointing term for a disappointing Court. Its deference to a racist and xenophobic administration is a violation of the promise of freedom that our nation once embodied to so many around the world. The American Dream is turning into a nightmare, accessible only to a shrinking population hand-picked by a bigoted and vindictive administration. As we prepare this weekend to celebrate our nation’s 250 birthday, we must remember that our nation still has a long way to go to achieve the promise it laid out all those years ago.
Federal Updates:
The Trump Administration filed a suit against both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, challenging the states’ in-state tuition laws. We join 10 other states that the administration has sued over policies that treat undocumented students the same as their classmates. In a number of those cases, states with anti-immigrant Attorneys General declined to defend their state laws, either ending the laws or requiring non-profits to step in to do the AGs’ jobs. A number of states, like California and Illinois, are currently in the process of defending their laws. In the one case that has concluded, a federal court found that Minnesota’s in-state tuition law was not in violation of federal law. We anticipate that the Massachusetts law will similarly survive a legal challenge.
Anti-ICE activists in upstate New York have recently been targeted by DHS in what would appear to be an intimidation campaign by the agency. Two activists have been visited by ICE officers in the last two weeks, and served with an official warning that their social media posts amount to threats against government agents. Others argue that their posts are political speech protected by the First Amendment. MIRA has not seen or heard of any such actions here in Massachusetts, but we and our allies across the state will keep a close eye on these threats to free speech.