The Supreme Court had a busy month releasing immigration decisions in June, with a trifecta of landmark holdings affecting green card holders’ reentry, TPS, and birthright citizenship.
On June 23, 2026, in a 6-3 ruling in Blanche v. Lau, the Supreme Court made it easier for border officials to re-classify returning lawful permanent residents (green card holders) as initial applicants seeking first time admission to the United States. Green card holders enjoy permanent authorization to live and work in the U.S. While certain serious criminal convictions can result in removal proceedings, they are ordinarily entitled to a hearing with an immigration judge before they can be deported.
That protection becomes more complicated when permanent residents return to the U.S after traveling abroad. By default, they are treated as already “admitted” to the country when they arrive at U.S. Immigration. However, a permanent resident who has engaged in criminal activity could be treated as a new “applicant for admission”at the airport or border crossing. This distinction is significant because it subjects the individual to a different legal framework. If this occurs, they are referred to see an immigration judge for potential deportation, and a broader range of criminal convictions, even minor ones, can trigger deportation. They are also subject to detention in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility.
Once reclassified, which has now become easier after the Blanche v. Lau decision, a lawful permanent resident may face broader grounds for removal and a greater risk of losing permanent resident status. This was the situation facing Mr. Lau, who traveled internationally while a trademark counterfeiting charge was pending against him, even though he had not been convicted of anything.
Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan warned that the decision allows permanent residents to lose important statutory protections based on a border official’s mere belief that criminal activity has occurred. The dissent characterized the majority decision as handing the government a “massive blank check.”
The takeaway is permanent residents should exercise increased caution before traveling internationally if they have pending criminal charges or activity that could be seen as unfavorable by a border official. Consulting with experienced immigration counsel before departure may help identify and mitigate potential risks at re-entry.
On June 25, 2026, in Mullin v. Doe, SCOTUS concluded that the judicial branch does not have the authority to review an administration’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for any country, and dismissed claims that the termination of Haiti’s designation was racially motivated. The Court found the evidence was insufficient to show that race played a determining role in the government’s decision over a vigorous dissent from Justices Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor, citing numerous racially charged statements by Trump Administration officials about Haiti. Although limited to Haitian and Syrian TPS, this decision has broader implications for the scope of the executive’s authority to terminate the program.
For background, TPS is a form of humanitarian protection for nationals of countries experiencing unsafe conditions, such as armed conflict or environmental disasters. Beneficiaries may remain and work in the U.S. during the designated period to avoid returning to life-threatening conditions at home. Countries designated for TPS have included Haiti, Sudan, Ukraine, Syria, El Salvador, and Afghanistan, among others.
The relevant statute requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to review conditions in designated countries every 18 months; it authorizes termination of a designation if conditions have substantially improved. Some designations have remained in place for years, or even decades, where conditions continue to deteriorate or fail to improve. More than 800,000 TPS holders currently participate in the U.S. workforce.
The Trump Administration has prioritized ending TPS for most designated countries, prompting widespread legal challenges. In Mullin v. Doe, which reviewed a lower court injunction of the administration’s termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria, the plaintiffs argued that Secretary Kristi Noem failed to conduct the required review of the conditions in these countries before terminating the designation, and that the terminations were unconstitutionally motivated by race.
The decision is a devastating blow to hundreds of thousands of TPS holders facing return to unsafe countries. It is also difficult news for the employers that depend on this workforce. Employers may need to review alternative employment options, if there are any, for TPS employees losing their status.
And finally, in the much-anticipated Trump v. Barbara, on June 30, 2026, SCOTUS upheld “birthright citizenship” in the U.S., striking down President Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, executive order which would no longer acknowledge U.S. citizenship for children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States.
The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside.” Debates around birthright citizenship hinge on the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which alludes to, but does not define, a class of U.S.-born individuals that are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The typical examples in 1868 would have been American Indians born on reservations and children of certain ambassadors and diplomats; the Court addressed whether, at the time of the Amendment, this may have also included children of foreigners not domiciled in the U.S.
The government argued that children of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the U.S. would not have been “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because the parents were not “domiciled” in the U.S. SCOTUS previously addressed the question in its 1898 decision, holding that a Chinese national was a citizen in the U.S. upon his birth. However, in that case, the individual was born to lawful permanent residents of the U.S., leaving open the question of children born of undomiciled parents.
The majority relied primarily on English common law principles and 17th-century caselaw as well as various American treatises and texts from the 1800s. Under English common law, children born within the realm had an implied allegiance to, and protection from, the sovereign – a tie that held even when born to parents subject to expulsion, such as Romani people (historically referred to as ‘gypsies’). Similar concepts carried over to the American colonies and the new republic.
Birth in the United States continues to confer U.S. citizenship, regardless of the legal status of the parent. Despite the majority’s general deference to the Administration on immigration policy, the Court stopped short of a dramatic overhaul of the longstanding definition of U.S. citizenship. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh (concurring for different reasons) swung to immigrant side for this key decision.
These three rulings show a Court willing to grant the executive branch wide latitude on immigration enforcement and program administration, while still drawing a constitutional line it was unwilling to cross on citizenship. Immigration practitioners, employers, and affected individuals should watch closely as lower courts begin applying these decisions in the coming months.
The material contained in this article does not constitute direct legal advice and is for informational purposes only. An attorney-client relationship is not presumed or intended by receipt or review of this presentation. The information provided should never replace informed counsel when specific immigration-related guidance is needed.
Reprinted with permission from the July 15, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer© 2026 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 – reprints@alm.com.
