In late June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court closed out its term with a series of rulings that answer some of the most fundamental questions in immigration law: who is a citizen at birth, how much power courts have to check immigration decisions, and when a person seeking protection is legally considered to have “arrived” in the country. Three rulings stand out.
The following sections explain what the Court decided and what each ruling may mean for you and your family.
Birthright citizenship is here to stay (Trump v. Barbara)
The birthright citizenship ruling matters most for many of the families we serve.
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that a child born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen at birth regardless of the parents’ immigration status, including temporary visa holders, permanent residents, and undocumented immigrants. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, grounding the decision in the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and more than a century of settled understanding, including the landmark 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
The case struck down an executive order signed in January 2025 that had attempted to withhold citizenship from babies born in the U.S. to parents who were either undocumented or in the country on temporary visas. That order never took effect, and every lower court to review it found it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court confirmed that outcome: children born in the United States are, in the Court’s words, “citizens at birth.”
Why this matters for our readers
Many employment-based visa holders, particularly Indian nationals on H-1B, L-1, and similar statuses, are navigating green card backlogs that can stretch for years or even decades. The 2025 executive order would have directly affected U.S.-born children in many of those families. Under the ruling, a child born while a parent is on an H-1B, an F-1, or another temporary status, or while a family waits in the EB-2 or EB-3 line, is a U.S. citizen from birth.
What to watch
The Supreme Court’s ruling settles the constitutional question and is binding. However, some lawmakers have signaled plans to pursue legislation on the issue, and one justice raised questions about Congress’s role. Under the current legal framework, birthright citizenship stands on firm constitutional footing, and families do not need to take any action to protect the citizenship of a child born in the United States.
Courts can no longer review most TPS termination decisions (Mullin v. Doe)
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal courts generally cannot review Department of Homeland Security decisions to designate, extend, or terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for a country. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, concluding that the TPS law’s judicial-review bar is broad and applies to essentially all non-constitutional challenges.
The ruling cleared the way for the government to end TPS for Haiti and Syria by lifting earlier lower-court orders that had kept TPS protections in place during litigation. USCIS announced that TPS-based work permits for Haiti and Syria expired on July 10, 2026. Constitutional challenges remain possible, but the Court signaled that any challenge faces a steep uphill battle. The majority also found a claim alleging discrimination in the Haiti TPS termination unlikely to succeed.
Why this matters for our readers
India is not a TPS-designated country, so the ruling does not directly affect Indian nationals or most of our readers. The broader significance extends beyond TPS. The decision gives the executive branch wide latitude over an important immigration program while sharply limiting the courts’ role in reviewing TPS termination decisions. For anyone following U.S. immigration policy, and for the roughly 1.3 million people relying on TPS across multiple countries, the ruling marks a significant shift.
Asylum seekers must physically enter the U.S. to “arrive” (Mullin v. Al Otro Lado)
Also on June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3, again in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, that a person seeking asylum has not “arrived in the United States” simply by presenting at the border. Under the Court’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the government’s duty to inspect and process an individual, along with the individual’s right to request asylum, begins only after the person physically enters U.S. territory.
The decision upholds “metering,” a practice that limits how many people are processed at ports of entry, and confirms the government’s authority to turn asylum seekers away before they set foot on U.S. soil.
Why this matters for our readers
The ruling is most relevant to people arriving at the southern border to seek asylum, rather than to visa holders or green card applicants already in the U.S. The ruling also reflects a broader pattern across the Supreme Court’s recent immigration decisions. In all three rulings, the Court expanded executive authority over immigration while narrowing the courts’ role in reviewing immigration decisions.
The bigger picture
Taken together, the three rulings reveal a consistent pattern. The Supreme Court reaffirmed one of the most established principles in American law by protecting birthright citizenship for children born in the United States. At the same time, the Court expanded executive authority over immigration programs while narrowing the courts’ role in reviewing immigration decisions. For families living in the United States on temporary visas or waiting in employment-based green card backlogs, the birthright citizenship ruling carries the greatest practical significance.
Immigration law continues to evolve, and the long-term effects of the rulings will become clearer over time. Questions about a visa, green card timeline, or family member’s immigration status should be discussed with a qualified immigration attorney.
This blog is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
