Below is my column on Fox.com on the two immigration decisions yesterday from the Supreme Court. One of the cases turned on a Clintonesque debate of what the meaning of “in” is. In the end, however, the Court went “all in” with executive authority over immigration policy.
Here is the column:
“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place … before the person enters that place.”
Those words may seem ripped from the pages of Dr. Seuss but they are taken from the 6-3 majority opinion of Justice Samuel Alito in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. They captured the lost-in-translation character of the Court’s fight over whether undocumented persons must be physically present in the United States to make an asylum claim. In one of a pair of major immigration wins for the Trump Administration, the Court ruled that asylum seekers who are stopped on the other side of the Southern border are not present in the United States. If treated as inside the country despite being outside it, these individuals would be allowed to enter and remain while their asylum claims are pending.
The case highlights the lengths to which the Biden Administration went to facilitate the entry of undocumented persons into the country. It rescinded a policy of “metering” that was put into place by the Obama Administration (and later restored and expanded by the Trump Administration).
In seeking to bar Trump from enforcing the same policy as the Obama Administration, the three liberal justices sounded positively Clintonesque in debating what the meaning of “in” is. Justice Sonia Sotomayor denounced the majority’s “illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: ‘in.’ Words, however, must be read in context and with attention to how they fit into the statute as a whole.”
In their view, “contextual” reading means that you can be “in” the United States without actually being “in” the United States.
The sharp disagreement in the opinions spilled over to the release of the opinions. Justice Alito read a summary of his opinion, followed by a more lengthy reading by Justice Sotomayor of her dissent. The stinging dissent produced a rare rebuttal from the bench by Alito, who was surprised by the extended comments and said that, if he had not been blindsided, he would have said more, including how “the policy in question was adopted by two very different administrations.”
The court also delivered a major victory in Mullin v. Doe, upholding the right of the Administration to strip more than 356,000 Syrian and Haitian immigrants of temporary protection status. Again, lower courts afforded the Obama and Biden Administrations greater leeway in granting such status than Trump in rescinding it.
The combination of the two opinions offers significant advances for the Administration in addressing millions of undocumented persons in this country.
In her dissent in Mullin, Sotomayor invoked the image of the voyage of the M. S. St. Louis, where Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were not allowed entry in various countries only to be returned to Germany, where many died in the Holocaust.
The problem with the analogy is that all of those on the St. Louis were demonstrably in flight from lethal persecution. Virtually all of the asylum claims made at our borders are rejected as unsupported or invalid. Immigration groups hand out material across the border, coaching immigrants to claim asylum status to guarantee that they can stay in the country for years before any final adjudication can be made. The acceptance rate of these claims is currently below five percent.
The question is how to limit such constructive entries if being “in” the United States does not require actually being in the United States. More importantly, absent a clear legal basis for such constructive entries, it is not clear why courts should be able to dictate such policies. The control of our borders has long been an area marked by heavy deference to the Executive Branch. During the Biden Administration, courts often embraced that discretion as the Administration allowed over ten million unvetted immigrants to enter.
Trump was elected on the pledge to reverse these policies by using the same discretion that his predecessor employed to open the border.
The dissent shows how untethered these opinions are from not just “ordinary speech,” but principles of judicial restraint. Placing these disputes in “context” is a liberating construct that allows a court to read the words “arrives in the United States” to include those outside of the United States. It also gives a glimpse at the likely approach of the new expanded Supreme Court that Democrats are pledging if they regain power.
The decisions in Mullin v. Doe and Mullin v. Al Otro Lado will not erase the backlog in immigration cases or remove millions of unvetted immigrants. That will require both an expansion of our immigration courts and real reforms to further streamline the removal process. However, in two 6-3 opinions, the Administration regained substantial authority in the management of our borders.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The stinging dissent produced a rare rebuttal from the bench by Alito, who was surprised by the extended comments and said that, if he had not been blindsided, he would have said more, including how “the policy in question was adopted by two very different administrations.”
The Left cares not about immigrants, any more than they care about blacks, Hispanics, disabled, those incarcerated, etc.
When members of the community volunteer their time and talents to medical clinics, homeless centers, schools, prisons, etc, they are almost always religious individuals – they do what they do because it is part of their vocation. What is also noticeable at these centers is that political protestors, activists and virtue signaling types are never found there. Never. As someone who has for years and still volunteers at such places because of my Catholic Faith, it is always the same theme with those who volunteer: they are neither hard core Left nor Right. They are apolitical. They’re just people passionate about walking their talk. We know Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett both were involved in community service in such organizations before they became part of SCOTUS. Now they have to worry about being assassinated in public by the Left instead of serving the poor, the hungry, the orphan. Perhaps Justices Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan were very active in their local communities in serving the marginalized mano-a-mano, where they got their hands dirty and could smell those whom they were serving. Being part of a lofty committee that promulgated rules doesn’t cut it. Thus we have the circus show of Rosa DeLauro having a meltdown when Markwayne Mullin calls her on her bullchips. Americans should be familiar now with these scripts, and vote accordingly in future elections.
I don’t know. I really have mixed feelings about immigration in toto.
The abuse of the system is unabashedly stunning, and I would guess far outweighs its original benevolent purpose.
Think of it. MILLIONS of illegal immigrants here. MILLIONS. Still coming. Still here. Receiving benefits and living with impunity/without consequence for breaking our laws.
Justice Sotomayor is right about one thing. “More people will attempt to cross the border illegally.”
I’m willing to pay more for my tomatoes and strawberries or construction endeavor. I’m willing to support sharing our nation’s wealth with those less fortunate. I am NOT willing to become an enabler for illegal immigration, bringing our nation down to a muted melding with the common denominator of flouting our laws.
Instead of draining OUR resources in education, healthcare, criminal justice, etc.–JUST STAY WHERE YOU ARE. This is no longer the 18th, or 19th, or the 20th century. We already send you food, clothing, shelter, medicine, educators, etc. But we can teach you WHERE YOU ARE. We can help you build your own businesses to utilize your resources; we will pay your for your product. We can work with your government. We can enforce change. We now have United Nations, WF, International Criminal Court (ICC), on and on. No need to come here. Make Your Own Great Nation.
Law School 101: Don’t make a law that you don’t enforce.
We need to overhaul/revamp our entire immigration legislation to fit today’s reality. If SCOTUS can have a “living Constitution,” then we need “living Immigration” laws. And then enforce what we write.
Lin,
Great comment.
But as we have seen, certain admins do not enforce what we write. And we when do, we get domestic terrorist groups attempting to assault, or even murder those who would enforce those very laws.
Lin and Upstate, this article is less radical than me, but more radical than you. The discussion you’re having is worrisome but necessary, unless Trump and Vance can turn things around, and it’s too soon to tell about that.
https://thefederalist.com/2026/06/25/after-250-years-our-american-republic-is-coming-apart/
It doesn’t appear that your feelings on immigration are mixed. The Marxist Democrats have an agenda and that is to change the demographics to influence elections. Think of it. They flood the country with illegals and then want non-citizens counted in the Census to give them more House seats. Then they give the illegals freebies and get them to register Democrat while pushing for non-citizens to qualify for voting in elections. Finally, they tell them that their freebies will be taken away unless they vote Dem. It’s pure evil, unconstitutional, and un-American. The founding fathers would try them for treason.
They are traitors and proud of it. They are also the biggest fools since the antebellum secessionists.
Another wordy legal document that defines loyalty itself is the American Oath of Office.
Trump made a promise to Jesus Christ to NOT violate anyone’s constitutional rights using his job authority. Apparently Trump never physically touched the Bible when making this promise to GOD, but even for atheist politicians the oath of office is legally binding.
Under Section 3 of Article VI, the last part of the oath of office (“so help me GOD) is optional, not required by the government servant. Many constitutional experts believe that the Founding Fathers allowed the religious reference so that foreign style theocrats (believing the church ran the government like some foreign nations) would act American if they made a promise to their GOD to follow the U.S. Constitution. The oath of office was a great counter to foreign style theicracy.
Trump made this promise on his first day of office. No American can have or retain governing authority without agreeing to this employment contract. Since words matter now, maybe Trump should start being more loyal?
What is your point? These Supreme Court cases were found in Trump’s favor meaning he is upholding the Constitution. My conclusion is that his predecessor Joe Biden was acting illegally since the language of the statute was scrutinized by the SCOTUS and favored this administration’s interpretation. Even a kindergartner knows that they are not “in” the house until they go through the door crossing the threshold. Trump is being loyal to the law and keeping his oath to uphold and execute the laws of the nation. Trump is also being loyal to his campaign promises to the American people. Illegal immigration has been called an “80/20” issue with Americans siding with Trump. So again, what is your point other than to make a veiled yet unfounded accusation.
I appears that the Democrats plan has come to fruition. Have the teachers union teach our children not to read and learn the definitions of words. Then as they grow older they can become a Supreme Court Justice. Then the words of the constitution can mean whatever the judges read, or can’t read, into it. Thus accomplishing their goal of ruling based on sympathetic feelings instead of actual written law.
“In their view, “contextual” reading means that you can be “in” the United States without actually being “in” the United States.”
The Left’s rewriting of words (“in,” seriously?!) is comically absurd:
Joe, trying to impress: “I’m in college.”
Susie: “No you’re not. You haven’t even applied.”
Joe: “Well, I’m contextually in college.”
Susie: “Great. Then I’ll contextually sleep with you.”
Sally, calling Tom because she’s late for a business meeting:
Sally: “But I’m in your office.”
Tom: “No you’re not. You’re calling me from your car.”
Sally: “Well, I’m contextually in your office.”
Tom: “Great. Then contextually the contract is yours.”
Leftists are like a never-ending Monty Python skit. Only they want us to take them seriously.
Are you stupid or sumptin, Turley laid out the issues and you think your comment is somehow smarter?
OMG funny
Spot on . The leftist fertilizer gets piled higher and deeper daily. The above comment is the response leftist deserve.
Sam: Good one. made me smile.
-Not to take from your wit, but here’s close to home:
Dom: “Turley is dishonest, naive, and hypocritical.”
Tom: “This is his blog. You are his guest.”
Dom: “He’s fair game. It is fair to criticize him.”
Tom: “But your ‘criticisms’ don’t even ring true. Do you even know what you are talking about?”
Dom: “Doesn’t matter. This is a free blog. So, ‘I’m in.’.”