06/27/2026
Staff from the Office of Peacebuilding and Policy attended an emergency rally at the Supreme Court following today’s decisions.
Today, the Supreme Court issued two decisions which undermine the humanitarian protection afforded to (1) individuals with Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) and (2) individuals seeking asylum. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson-Brown dissented in both cases.
In Mullin v. Doe, the Court reversed decisions by two district courts issuing interim stays of Department of Homeland Security’s decisions terminating TPS for individuals from Haiti and Syria. The Court held that the statute establishing the framework for TPS prohibits judicial review of DHS decisions on any non-constitutional claims, including claims that the Secretary failed to comply with the statute’s procedural requirement to consult with the State Department. The Court found that plaintiffs were not entitled to interim relief on their constitutional claim because they had failed to demonstrate that they were likely to prevail on their claim of racial animus. In reaching that finding, the Court found that none of the repeated harsh negative statements made by the President and Secretary toward Haitians and others of color were “overtly racial,” or in substance and simply expressed policy view indicating that the President “opposes the TPS program at least as it has been implemented in the past.”
In her dissent, Justice Kagan found that the majority erred in two ways. First, although the factual basis for the decision to review the termination may not be reviewable, the statute did not prohibit reviewing whether it followed the procedures required by the statute. Second, the majority erred in seeing no evidence that race played any role in the Haiti decision because the record clearly demonstrated such bias.
This decision has devastating consequences for thousands of individuals who are currently protected by TPS. In addition to those from Syria and Haiti, there are four pending district court cases staying the TPS termination of individuals from Ethiopia, Yemen, Burma, South Sudan and Somalia. In addition, TPS protection for four countries (Lebanon, El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine) are scheduled to expire in the fall.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court held that administration had authority to turn away migrants seeking asylum along the U.S.-Mexico border by physically preventing them from crossing into the United States as they seek protection from persecution. The decision in effect allows the United States to refuse asylum to all asylum seekers outside the United States who seek to enter lawfully at a U.S. border, which would have devastating consequences for the hundreds of thousands that flee persecution and war and seek refuge in the United States. The Church of the Brethren joined with other faith groups in filing an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.
Justice Sotomayor read her dissent in Court. In addition to finding that the reasoning of the majority was flawed, she warned that the decision would leave people fleeing persecution or violence more vulnerable to “dangerous conditions.” “The consequences of today’s decision are predictable,” she read. “More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not.”
The Church of the Brethren “out of obedience to our heritage and the Gospel mandate,” “affirms legislation and public policies which welcome and promote the welfare of immigrants and refugees.” (1982 Statement: Undocumented Persons and Refugees in the United States).
