Introduction
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security responded on June 25, 2026, to three Supreme Court rulings that collectively reshape key areas of immigration enforcement — affecting how lawful permanent residents face removal proceedings, who qualifies for asylum at the southern border, and whether Temporary Protected Status designations for Syria and Haiti can be cancelled. DHS issued a statement characterizing the decisions as victories for its enforcement agenda, and the rulings carry immediate, practical consequences for a broad range of immigrants and immigration practitioners. Understanding what each Supreme Court immigration enforcement ruling actually decided — and what it means for those it touches — requires a closer look at each case.
Background
Each of the three rulings addressed an area where lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit, had constrained the federal government’s enforcement authority. Prior to these decisions, longstanding legal standards provided certain procedural protections: lawful permanent residents returning to the United States after travel abroad could not be treated as new applicants for admission without clear and convincing evidence of criminal conduct; individuals physically present at or near the U.S. border could argue eligibility for asylum under some circuit interpretations; and Temporary Protected Status terminations had been subject to judicial review and challenged on constitutional grounds. All three of those frameworks have now been altered by the Court.
What Is Changing
In Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that U.S. Customs and Border Protection is not required to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that individual as an applicant for admission rather than a returning resident. CBP may now defer the inspection of such LPRs until after a criminal conviction is entered, and the conviction can then serve as the basis for removal proceedings.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, also decided 6-3, the Court held that a foreign national standing in Mexico who attempts but fails to cross into U.S. territory has not “arrived in the United States” for purposes of asylum eligibility. Arrival requires a successful border crossing. This reverses a Ninth Circuit ruling that had extended asylum eligibility to individuals positioned outside the land border. Immigration officers are also not required to inspect individuals who have not successfully entered U.S. territory under this standard.
In Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump Administration may cancel the TPS designations for Syria and Haiti. Beyond the specific country designations, the ruling has broader structural significance: the Court determined that federal law generally bars judicial review of TPS designation and termination decisions going forward, and that challengers to those decisions are unlikely to succeed on claims that terminations are racially discriminatory.
Who Is Affected
Lawful permanent residents who have any prior criminal history — including arrests without convictions, or conduct that might be characterized as involving moral turpitude — face meaningfully elevated risk when re-entering the United States after international travel. The Blanche ruling directly affects this population, and the practical exposure is not limited to those with serious criminal records; moral turpitude is a broad and sometimes contested legal category.
Nationals of countries that may be subject to future TPS terminations, and specifically the estimated hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Haitians currently holding TPS, are directly affected by Mullin v. Doe. The elimination of judicial review for future TPS decisions also affects any TPS holder whose country designation could be reconsidered, regardless of nationality.
Asylum seekers who present themselves at or near the southern border without successfully crossing are directly affected by Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. Individuals currently enrolled in or awaiting processing under programs that involved waiting in Mexico before formal entry may also need to reassess their legal footing.
Immigration attorneys, employers sponsoring foreign nationals for permanent residence, and HR professionals managing employees with green cards and international travel are indirectly but significantly affected — particularly by the Blanche ruling, which changes the risk calculus for any LPR with criminal exposure.
Practical Implications
For lawful permanent residents, the most urgent practical consequence of Blanche flows from international travel. Any LPR with a prior arrest, pending charge, or conviction — even for something that may not have seemed immigration-significant at the time — should consult an immigration attorney before traveling outside the United States. The ability of CBP to treat a returning LPR as an applicant for admission rather than a resident, and to hold open the question pending a later conviction, represents a significant procedural shift.
For TPS holders from Syria and Haiti, the Mullin v. Doe ruling creates immediate status uncertainty. The court’s bar on judicial review of future TPS decisions removes a critical avenue of legal challenge that had delayed enforcement in prior termination attempts. TPS holders in these categories should begin evaluating whether any other immigration pathways — family-based petitions, employer sponsorship, or other forms of relief — may be available, and they should do so without delay.
For asylum seekers and advocates, the Al Otro Lado ruling forecloses arguments grounded in physical proximity to the border. Individuals who have not successfully entered U.S. territory cannot rely on presence at the border to trigger inspection obligations or asylum eligibility. This will have direct operational consequences for how asylum access is structured at the southern border.
Open questions remain. DHS’s statement does not specify immediate operational changes to inspection procedures or TPS wind-down timelines. Further agency guidance is anticipated, and the precise scope of the judicial review bar established in Mullin v. Doe will likely be tested in subsequent litigation.
What to Watch For Next
Stakeholders should monitor DHS and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for formal guidance on how the Blanche standard will be applied operationally at ports of entry, and for any announced timeline related to TPS terminations for Syria and Haiti. The breadth of the judicial review bar in TPS matters will also likely be subject to further legal interpretation as future challenges arise. Employers with green card holders traveling internationally should stay alert to any CBP procedural guidance that follows from Blanche.
How Immigration Professional Association Can Help
Each of these three rulings touches a different client population, but all three share a common thread: legal exposure that was manageable or challengeable before June 25, 2026, looks meaningfully different today. Immigration Professional Association works directly with lawful permanent residents, TPS holders, and employers navigating the full range of consequences that arise when enforcement law shifts this sharply.
If you are a green card holder with any prior criminal history — even something minor or resolved — our team can help you evaluate your travel risk and understand how the Blanche ruling affects your situation before you encounter a CBP officer at a port of entry. If you or a family member holds TPS from Syria or Haiti, we can review whether other immigration options are available and help you move forward while time and options remain.
Employers and HR teams managing green card holders or employees with complex immigration histories should also take this moment seriously — the standard CBP applies to returning LPRs has changed, and workforce travel policies may need to reflect that. Immigration Professional Association is ready to help you work through what these rulings mean for your specific circumstances. Reach out to our team to schedule a consultation focused on how these Supreme Court decisions affect you.
