The United States Supreme Court issued two rulings on June 25, 2026, affirming the Trump administration's authority to restrict asylum applications at the southern border and terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for specific foreign nationals.

美國最高法院於 2026 年 6 月 25 日發布兩項裁決，確認川普政府有權限制南部邊境的庇護申請，並終止特定外國國民的臨時保護狀態（TPS）。

In the matter of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court addressed the legal definition of 'arriving in the United States' under the Immigration and Nationality Act. A 6-3 majority, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, concluded that individuals physically situated in Mexico have not 'arrived' within the U.S. and are therefore not entitled to asylum screenings. This determination permits the reinstatement of 'metering' policies, which allow officials to block entry at ports of entry based on capacity. Conversely, the dissent, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, posited that this interpretation creates a perverse incentive for illegal crossings and ignores the statutory intent to protect those fleeing persecution.

在 Mullin v. Al Otro Lado 一案中，法院針對《移民與國籍法》下「抵達美國」的法律定義進行裁定。由大法官 Samuel Alito 撰寫的 6 比 3 多數意見認為，身體位於墨西哥境內的人士尚未「抵達」美國，因此無權要求庇護篩查。此裁定允許恢復「分流」政策，使官員能根據承載能力在入境口岸封鎖進入。相反地，由大法官 Sonia Sotomayor 領銜的少數意見則認為，此種解釋會為非法越境創造扭曲的誘因，且無視了保護逃離迫害人士的法定意圖。

Simultaneously, in Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled that the TPS statute precludes judicial review of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) determinations to terminate protections. This ruling facilitates the removal of legal status for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. While plaintiffs alleged that these terminations were motivated by racial animus—citing derogatory rhetoric from the executive—the majority found that the administration's systematic termination of all TPS designations undergoing review provided a race-neutral justification. The decision effectively expands executive discretion over the TPS program, which currently affects 1.3 million individuals across 17 nations.

與此同時，在 Mullin v. Doe 一案中，法院裁定 TPS 法令排除對國土安全部（DHS）終止保護決定之司法審查。此裁決將導致約 35 萬名海地人與 6,100 名敘利亞人失去合法身份。儘管原告指稱這些終止決定源於種族仇視——並引用行政部門的貶低性言論——但多數意見認為，行政部門系統性地終止所有處於審查階段的 TPS 指定，提供了與種族無關的正當理由。該決定有效地擴大了行政部門對 TPS 計劃的自由裁量權，該計劃目前影響 17 個國家的 130 萬人。

These judicial outcomes coincide with heightened legislative and administrative friction. While some members of Congress, such as Representative Mike Lawler, expressed concern regarding the potential for a healthcare crisis resulting from the deportation of Haitian TPS holders, the administration maintains that the program was intended to be temporary. Furthermore, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has emphasized the necessity of physical and technological barriers to counter cartel activities, despite congressional inquiries into detention facility mortality rates.

這些司法結果正值立法與行政摩擦加劇之際。雖然部分國會議員（如眾議員 Mike Lawler）對遣返海地 TPS 持有人可能導致的醫療危機表示擔憂，但行政部門堅持認為該計劃原本就是臨時性的。此外，國土安全部長 Markwayne Mullin 強調，儘管國會對拘留設施的死亡率提出質詢，但仍有必要建立物理與技術屏障以對抗卡特爾活動。

The Supreme Court's decisions significantly consolidate executive power over border management and the revocation of humanitarian statuses, effectively limiting judicial oversight of these immigration policies.

最高法院的決定顯著鞏固了行政部門在邊境管理與撤銷人道主義身份方面的權力，有效地限制了對這些移民政策的司法監督。