Supreme Court Immigration Rulings
A U.S. federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from revoking work permits for tens of thousands of asylum seekers and immigrants with TPS from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine on July 21, 2026, while considering a longer-term injunction. As of July 21, 2026, a decision is expected by August 5, challenging new USCIS policies including an annual asylum fee. This follows several Supreme Court rulings in June 2026, which affirmed birthright citizenship, allowed the termination of TPS for individuals from Syria and Haiti, and ruled that noncitizens must physically enter the U.S. to be eligible for asylum. The Court also ruled that immigration officials do not need 'clear and convincing evidence' of a crime at the moment of reentry to treat a lawful permanent resident as an applicant for admission, impacting green card holders with pending criminal charges.
Timeline
Want updates on this thread?
Track this storyTimeline of developments
July 2026 — 2 developments
Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration from Revoking Asylum Seeker Work Permits
A U.S. federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from revoking work permits for tens of thousands of asylum seekers and immigrants with TPS from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine. The block is in place while the judge considers a longer-term injunction, with a decision expected by August 5, challenging new USCIS policies including an annual asylum fee.
Supreme Court Affirms Birthright Citizenship, Rules on Asylum and TPS
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed birthright citizenship for individuals born on U.S. soil, rejecting an executive order that sought to limit this right. In separate decisions, the Court allowed the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for individuals from Syria and Haiti, limiting judicial review of such decisions, and ruled that noncitizens must physically enter the U.S. to be eligible to apply for asylum.
June 2026 — 4 developments
Supreme Court Rules Border Officials Not Required to Process Asylum Cases Unless Individuals Enter US Soil
The Supreme Court has ruled that border officials are not required to process asylum cases unless individuals physically step onto U.S. soil and are not legally obligated to inspect or process those who are physically blocked from entering by border agents. In a separate ruling, the court determined that federal law does not grant courts the power to review executive branch decisions regarding Temporary Protected Status (TPS) unless a specific constitutional question is raised.
Supreme Court allows termination of TPS for Haitians/Syrians, caps asylum seekers
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration in Mullin v. Doe, allowing the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for individuals from Haiti and Syria. This decision restricts federal courts from reviewing most non-constitutional challenges to DHS decisions to terminate TPS designations. In a separate 6-3 decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court ruled that the federal government can cap the number of asylum seekers allowed to present themselves at a port of entry.
Supreme Court Rules on Reentry for Lawful Permanent Residents
The Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2026, that immigration officials do not need 'clear and convincing evidence' of a crime at the moment of reentry to treat a lawful permanent resident (LPR) as an applicant for admission. This decision reverses a Second Circuit ruling and impacts how green card holders with pending criminal charges or a history of certain offenses are treated upon returning to the U.S.
Supreme Court rules against requiring clear and convincing evidence for lawful permanent resident removal
The Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit's judgment in Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, ruling that immigration law does not require border officers to possess clear and convincing evidence of a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming a lawful permanent resident an applicant for admission. The case has been remanded to the agency with instructions to terminate removal proceedings.
February 2026 — 1 developments
Supreme Court Schedules Oral Arguments for Bondi v. Lau on April 22, 2026
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the case of Bondi v. Lau for April 22, 2026. The case concerns whether the government must prove it had clear and convincing evidence of an offense at the time of a lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States to remove them. The Second Circuit had previously ruled in favor of Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident.
January 2026 — 7 developments
Supreme Court likely to hear oral arguments in *Bondi v. Lau* in April
Oral arguments for the Supreme Court case *Bondi v. Lau* are likely to be held in April.
Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Bondi v. Lau in October 2025-26 Term
The Supreme Court has listed *Bondi v. Lau* among the cases for which it has agreed to hear oral arguments in the October 2025-26 term. The central question is whether the government needs to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of an offense at the time of a lawful permanent resident's last reentry.
Certificate of Compliance Filed for Brief in Opposition in Bondi v. Lau
A certificate of compliance was filed on January 15, 2026, for the Brief in Opposition in Bondi v. Lau, certifying that it complies with word limitations.
Muk Lau submitted a brief to the Supreme Court
Muk Lau submitted a brief to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Bondi v. Lau, to Review Deportation Evidence Standard
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Bondi v. Lau on January 9, 2026. The case will determine if the government must present clear and convincing evidence of an offense at the time of a lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the U.S. to justify removal. This follows a Second Circuit ruling that overturned a deportation order for Muk Choi Lau, who was convicted of trademark counterfeiting.
Supreme Court to Hear US Government Appeal in Deportation Case
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the U.S. government's appeal in the case of Bondi v. Lau, concerning the deportation of lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau. The court will decide whether immigration agents can presume guilt in deportation cases based solely on criminal charges, rather than requiring clear and convincing evidence of an offense at the time of reentry.
DOJ Solicitor General Lists Bondi v. Lau Under Docket 25-429
The Department of Justice's Office of the Solicitor General lists the case Bondi v. Lau under docket number 25-429, with brief topics identified as Administrative Law and Immigration, Naturalization, & Citizenship.
March 2025 — 1 developments
Second Circuit Court vacates Lau's removal order, remands case
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted Lau's petition for review, vacated the final order of removal, and remanded the case. The court held that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) improperly classified Lau as an applicant for admission when he returned to the United States while his criminal charge was pending.
November 2021 — 1 developments
Board of Immigration Appeals affirms Lau's inadmissibility and ineligibility for waiver
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed an Immigration Judge's decision, finding Lau inadmissible due to his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and ineligible for a waiver. The BIA also rejected Lau's argument that he was improperly classified as an applicant for admission upon his return.
June 2012 — 1 developments
Lau paroled for deferred inspection by immigration authorities upon return to US
While awaiting trial, Lau temporarily left the United States. Upon his return, he was paroled for deferred inspection by immigration authorities due to his pending criminal charge.
May 2012 — 1 developments
Muk Choi Lau Charged With Third-Degree Trademark Counterfeiting in New Jersey
Muk Choi Lau was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey.