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 It rescinded a policy of “metering” that was put into place by the Obama Administration (and later restored and expanded by the Trump Administration).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.”
Since apparently “words” do have meaning, maybe the court should read the crystal wording of the 4th Amendment. There is no amendment with clearer wording and clearer meaning than the 4th Amendment.
America’s greatest legal expert – Robert Jackson – also a former U.S. Supreme Court jurist and Nuremberg Prosecutor of Nazis during World War Two, Jackson believed “warrantless arbitrary searches” were essentially the gateway to tyranny. Warrantless arbitrary search authority allows the government to easily violate your other rights (from gun rights to women’s pro-choice rights in states like Louisiana).
The 4th Amendment outlaws 18th Century style “General Warrants” (or fishing expeditions) by Trump agencies, state Fusion Centers and local governments.
Where does “by Trump Agencies” come from ? outer space ?
Please give me an example of the Trump administration conducting a search or seizure without a warrant ?
While Warrant less searches and seizures happen all the time – the police officers needs no warrant to stop you and cite you for running a stop sign. Regardless there is still no examples of warantless searches and seizures more egregious than those by Biden and Obama.
Nice attempt at deflection
It seems the outrage from the left stems from the word “temporary.” The Democrats want this word to mean “forever,” while Trump and SCOTUS looked it up in the dictionary. Brilliant.
What outrage, it was just 3 justices dissenting.
These decisions should have been 9-0 – In does not mean out, and temporary does not mean permanent.
Should have? Really? Have an problem with non-white women having an opinion? Knowing your gay, its not had to understand.
Somebody must have spiked your puberty blockers with Red Bull. You’re manic this morning.
Diogenes,
The majority rule in favor of the Trump admin and the minority dissent was, well, Clintonesque, which is not good.
So, our leftist friends are have a meltdown and trying to deflect as much as possible with inane and dumb comments.
In short, another day that ends in ‘y.’
Yep
WHAAAAT? You mean anchor babies dropped just across the border and claims of being persecuted by figments of imagination are going to have a tougher time? Say it AIN’T SO!!! Well the BAD SIDE is once President AOC and VP MAMDANI take over in 2029 the wave will return with a vengeance and SCOTUS has indicated they are hands off on the issues, basically leaving it to Executive Action for whom ever is EL HEFE those years!!! Get ready for some freaky action in the future!
The decison has nothing to do with anchor babies, aoc or mamdani.
IMO
The Obama influx of Somalians to Minneapolis was a case study for the Democratic Socialist Communists to determine the effectiveness and impact of focused immigration on a political basis. Overload an area with a specific demographic, create a block vote at the lower levels of public service and initiate their policies once elected. With their fellow upper echelon “American “ comrades and their Soros funded AGs, it’s a cabal of corruption not for the cash but for using the cash along the lines of Cloward-Piven to destroy our country.
What does your comment have to do with the SCOTUS decision?
Everything
Dear Mr. Turley, it is interesting to me to watch the various reactions from the Left whenever Mr. Trump has a victory at the Supreme Court. Raging anger, personal attacks and threats are, the most common response. What are they going to do once he is out of office? The world will realize, like me who voted for Mr. Trump 3 times, the Left has nothing of substance to offer. They are still complaining about “health care” in spite of the fact Obamacare, which the Democrats pushed through, (without reading the bill) is law. Perhaps if the Left would become serious about the fraud in our various government programs, they would see, maybe, there is money enough to pay the national debt and pay for programs to help the poor.
There will never be enough money to pay the national debt under any Republican because they reduce taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals to ensure massive borrowing is required. Trump has added 50% to the National Debt in just 2 years.
LOL
They never intended to pay it off. Debt is leverage to be used by those that hold it.
Now if they can get their collective heads from under their robes and get the birth right issue Right, the country might be able to recover some? Back in 1868 I’m sure it wasn’t meant for protection of illegal entry births, safe house maternity wards and birth tourism.
“Back in 1868 I’m sure…” You’re were not alive nor in a position to make any judgment.
Ano
Try reading MB comment again. I no point did he say he was alive in 1868.
Profound illiterates like that ano presume that one must have been alive at the time an event occurred to have any knowledge of it.
MB’s comment, you mean? He’s sure it wasn’t for protection … how can he possibly know what the background, the legal reasoning was in 1868? Even SCOTUS had a problem determining (and they have source to all federal documents, the drafts to the amendment etc.) and yet 3 of 9 had a different interpretation. Now how is that eh? So the MAGA justices resorted to word games for the win. It was a dirty win.
Immigration activist lawyers finally took a beatdown from the Supreme Court. The chaos and disorder they’ve sown these past 29 years (since the 1997 Barbara Jordan Commission’s Recommendations on Immigration Reform) are being systematically corrected. I expect by next week, the Court majority will outline how Congress has the authority to narrow eligibility for automatic birthplace citizenship, so long as the change is brought about in an orderly fashion.
The 5 conditions that would make Birthplace Citizenship Reform pass Constitutional muster:
1. A change in eligibility rule can never be applied retroactively to strip persons of US Citizenship
2. Give the States and Counties sufficient time to adapt systems and procedures before the effective date
3. If the rules depend upon proof of the parents’ US Citizenship, create a US Citizens database to make these decisions automatic, fast and fraud-free
4. For ineligible newborns, define how their Nationalities are to be pinned down on their birth certificates
5. For ineligible newborns, a Neonate Visitors Visa must be automatically issued so that the baby is legally present in the US, has an immigration status, and can depart the US legally with its parents — leaving zero stateless babies
The Trump Exec. Order was drawn up in haste, and failed on all 5 points of an orderly reform process, so almost nobody expects it to be upheld. Instead, the ball will be passed to Congress, hopefully with some guidance that defines real, lasting reform (as opposed to performative posturing aka HR 569).
What you’re asking for ⬆️, is an “advisory opinion” on BIRTHRIGHT citizenship, but the SCOTUS does not give/make such advisory opinions.
“Birthplace Citizenship Reform” was not the issue with the decision.
I personally don’t like messing with the Constitution. It says what it says. Striking down birthright will open the doors to other attacks.
“It says what it says.” Okay. But what does “it say” is the basis of the decision. Not all were in agreement with the decision.
It means what the Ratifiers believed the were approving. Revisionist interpretations of text taken out of historical context are circumventions of Article V, with its requirement that ALL significant revisions of Constitutional meaning and impact muster broad public support.
I want a Supreme Court that puts guardrails on the Federal Courts (including itself) to preclude new, never-ratified Constitutional meaning through activist Plaintiffs, their lawyers and Judges concocting an “interpretation”.
“I personally don’t like messing with the Constitution. It says what it says.”
No doubt you are referring to statements such as “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
Robert
Birthright citizenship as detailed in our Constitution was not intended for use as it now exists. Every American knows it, people that enter our country illegally and reside here illegally that give birth to children here should not get automatic citizenship. Often the children born here are at the expense of the taxpayers and immediately allow the illegal families access to our Social Security system. This is easily remedied and common sense applied.
In haste? MAGA had 9 years to produce that EO. Haste you say? They’re just plain F-ed up. As usual.
It is such a shame that the Constitution’s treatment of citizenship is iron clad and not accepting of “correction” by anything but a Constitutional amendment, no matter the racist desires of the American basket of deplorables.
If Democrats are supposed to be Nazis, then why are they letting so many brown people into America?
Um… deep question, let’s ask SCOTUS to review it.
“If Democrats are supposed to be Nazis, then why are they letting so many brown people into America?”
AI Overview
Non-white adherents to Nazism and white supremacy exist globally and in the U.S. Driven by shared grievances or a desire for “white proximity,” these individuals adopt or adapt extremist ideologies, leading to groups like “Morenazis” in Latin America or multiracial far-right organizations in the U.S.
MDPI
+1
The Paradox of Non-White Supremacy
While traditional Nazism strictly prioritizes an “Aryan” racial hierarchy, modern extremist fringes have adapted their recruitment and messaging to broaden their appeal.
Holocaust Encyclopedia
+1
Ideological Flexibility: Groups often mutate their messaging from strict white supremacy to a broader “anti-establishment” or “anti-immigrant” stance, bringing in a diverse pool of recruits who share common hatreds.
VOA – Voice of America English News
Shielding from Accusations: Far-right and neo-Nazi groups sometimes utilize non-white members or prominent figures as a shield to legitimize their movements and deflect accusations of racism.
VOA – Voice of America English News
Historical Precedents: During World War II, Nazi Germany created the semi-official category of “Honorary Aryan” to spare non-German allies (such as the Japanese and certain Arab leaders) from persecution.
Wikipedia
Examples of the Phenomenon
Latin America (“Morenazis”): The term “Morenazi” (a portmanteau of moreno meaning dark-skinned and Nazi) is used in Latin America to describe individuals of Indigenous or mixed ancestry who embrace white supremacist, antisemitic, and anti-immigrant rhetoric. The paradox highlights how localized, discriminatory frameworks can influence historically marginalized groups.
Wikipedia
+1
United States Extremism: High-profile figures of color have frequently played highly visible roles within the far-right and neo-Nazi milieus. Prominent examples include Nick Fuentes (who identifies as having Latino ancestry) and Enrique Tarrio (Afro-Cuban former leader of the Proud Boys). These individuals often reject the “white supremacist” label while actively promoting exclusionary and right-wing nationalist ideology.
VOA – Voice of America English News
+1
Esoteric & Hate Groups: Some extremist organizations like the Blood Tribe—a U.S.-based neo-Nazi group—adhere to esoteric ideologies and Norse Paganism, actively recruiting disaffected individuals of various backgrounds who share their anti-government and anti-Semitic goals.
Program on Extremism
Academic and Social Perspectives
Sociologists and criminologists suggest that individuals from varying ethnic backgrounds who adopt Nazi ideals do so to establish legitimacy or find a sense of community within radicalized spaces.
YouTube
·MS NOW
+1
On online platforms like Reddit’s r/asklatinamerica, the consensus is that while actual neo-Nazi movements in places like Latin America are generally small and politically irrelevant, local racists do sometimes appropriate Nazi aesthetics and antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Experts note that these ideologies are often redefined to fit the specific personal grievances of the recruit.
MDPI
+1
That’s the stupidest comment of the day. What color is a Nazi? What color were Hitlers allies in WWII?
Better yet, what color are Communists, that’s the question?
If most legal workers to choose from are not Hispanic, then why were the Hispanic ones still chosen?
If you haven’t read “Invisible Coup” by Peter Schweitzer, you don’t understand the Democrat party’s purpose behind mass immigration.
Thank you Mr. Schweitzer. But I’ll pass.
They were wearing sombreros and bullet belts, and they had big mustaches.
One was chugging tequila from a bottle.
Another was snoozing in the shade of a tree while a chihuahua licked his face.
Truth is my defense.
OMG! ‘Temporary’ does not mean forever. Who could have seen that coming.?
OMG! ‘In the country’ does not mean near the country, it means actually physically in the country. Who could have seen that coming?
I suppose it is a key point that the 6 votes were “In” the majority and that Sotomayor was not.
I would also like to comment on “Puzzling’s” point. It is incredible the see the delights of the visitors here for the FIFA World Cup. Besides all that they love of their visit to the USA, it also seems almost unanimous about the visitors condemnation of the media both in Europe (especially) and in the USA for lying to them about conditions in the US and how we welcome and are kind to our fellow sports enthusiasts . One wonders about the ramifications this might have as they return home and tell their neighbors and friends how much the media lies. Just another nail (hopefully) in the coffin of the MSM.
Excuse me, two videos have appeared in the rightist news media and several biased news reports based on them and studently there’s a wave of USA love? A couple thousand foreigners then go home and you think suddenly the world will change it attitude to the USA? Are you daft? Yes you are.
Its propaganda being pushed by rightist news outlets.
Same way I see it. A heap of propaganda. When the delight of eating at Bucees wears off, they’ll be back home protesting Trump and the USA.
Wishful thinking by a leftoid.
Ever go online and peruse social media? Didn’t think so.
Obviously you waste entire days pursing social media aka p_orn. Thought so.
Lots of your responses remind me of someone picking at a scab on their arm, and they wonder why it does not get better or healed. My advice? Let it go. . .stop ranting at other posts.
ATS – get over yourself.
Mississippi now has a higher standard of living than the UK, France and Italy – it is closing fast on Germany.
Those are the most prosperous large countries inn Europe – most of the smaller countries are doing worse.
Europe has 50% more people that the US and a GDP that is lower than the US.
Of course European Tourists are impressed. With few exceptions those traveling for the World cup are middle class
yet they come to the US and see Working Class americans are better off than they are.
Are they all on TV euphorically praising the US.
But few can avoid noting the obvious – DESPITE the abysmal management of Bush, Obama and Biden – the US has a significantly higher standard of living than Europe.
Further you do not need world cup tourists to tell you that.
Across the world left wing governments have fallen or are falling
Five socialist leaders in South America have toppled since 2023 – the last “socialist” to win power in South america was LuLu in an election that the Biden administration actively helped rig.
Lulu is running today against Balsanaro’s son – it is a dead heat right now, and Lulu has no Biden to rescue him.
The left fixates on some sniping between Meloni and Trump – but you were calling Meloni a nazi when she was elected
Socialists in France Germany and the UK will lose power the next time they allow an election.
Labor in the UK will be lucky to come in 3rd.
The few left leaning parties in Europe that have avoided losing power – have done so by shifting RIGHT on immigration.
Why ?
Because socialism FAILS – Always, Everywhere.
There is lots wrong with the US – all caused by the LEFT. Without left wing nut baggage – the US would be doing even better. But even with the burden of your half ass socialism – the US is still outperforming the world.
The working class in the US is the best off in the entire world – they got slammed under Obama and especially Biden – but they have recovered half the Biden losses in 18 months.
Are you st_upid on sum[tin, comparing MS, with a 3 M pop. and GDP of $125 B to 4 European nations with a pop. of 280 M and GDP of $ 22 T. You are are stupi_d. Really really stup_pid
It must take a lot of effort to cram that many economic hallucinations and political delusions into one rant.
First, boasting about Mississippi outperforming Western Europe is an interesting choice given its actual health, education, and poverty metrics—unless your idea of a “high standard of living” is purely imaginary.
Second, your illusion about the UK Labour Party coming in third is awkward, considering they actually won a historic, massive landslide victory to take over the government.
Throw in a completely baseless conspiracy theory about rigged Brazilian elections and a total confusion over what “socialism” actually means, and you’ve got a comedy routine. The world outside your echo chamber is doing just fine, John.
Btw, Mississippi is nowhere near European standard of living.
https://nypost.com/2026/06/24/media/ai-chatbots-show-left-wing-bias-bombshell-report-finds-chatgpt-gives-lefty-answers-80-of-time/
Mississippi has A/C and full size refridgeators.
“. . . two videos have appeared in the rightist news media . . .”
More like thousands, that are viral, with millions of views — on everything from the greatness of American hospitality, stores, food, a/c everywhere, to the fun of target shooting, sightseeing, and free refills.
But you do you. And suffer the consequences.
Now you’re going to pull the lazy ploy of demanding links. Look it up yourself. Media around the world is reporting on this uplifting experience.
Funny thing, the foreign press are not reporting the massive wave of USA love of its citizens during FIFA. Why do you think that is?
It does not fit their America hating agenda?
Thank you.
GEB,
The Norwegians taking of Times Square and doing the Viking Row on the subway was great!
Freddy from Germany has posted a lot of great videos.
The Tartan Army in FL, one of the Scottish fans got an invite from Ron DeSantis to Cubano sandwichs and watch the game!
It is hypocritical of Elon Musk to employ illegal aliens for the installation of Tesla charging stations.
How do you know they are illegal? Because they are Hispanic of Latino? Did you check their I.D.?
The U.S. Hispanic and Latino population was estimated at about 68 million as of July 1, 2024, representing roughly 20% of the total U.S. population.
You sound like a racist to me.
How do you know? Um… he wrote it, so it must be true..
Illegal immigrants who are Tren de Aragua, convicted murderers, convicted rapists, drug cartels, unvaccinated people, people with infectious diseases, child traffickers, insurrectionists … they’re not all Black, White, Indian, Asian, and Arab … the largest percentage of illegal immigrants in those categories just happen to be Hispanic and Latino. It’s not a question of being racist. It’s a question of being law-abiding and free of infectious disease … or not.
Not only “illegal aliens” are ” convicted murderers, convicted rapists, drug cartels, unvaccinated people, people with infectious diseases, child traffickers, insurrectionists ”
Give all Americans some credit for their contributions to the nation’s crime statistics, their contributions would make “illegal aliens” seem like just regular “illegal aliens”.
Oh, I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying that since there are criminal infectious Americans, it’s racist not to want to import tens of millions more of them.
“It is hypocritical of Elon Musk to employ . . .”
Will the Left ever tire of just making stuff up or of smears?
Those charging stations are built by outside contractors. Some are owned by third parties.
As usual, the 3 SCOTUS Lefties wax eloquent on how the law should read, in their view, rather than how the actual law, as enacted, does read. They really do believe that laws are merely “noses of wax”, to be revised by the Courts for whatever reason they feel is appropriate at the time.
They did not “wax eloquent”, they dissented in an attack on current Trump policies.
I would disagree with you. The dissenters focused on the EFFECT of carrying out the law. Typical lefty female emotional approach. Oh those poor babies that would be hurt if we follow the law.
female emotional…? Really, so says the bachelor/divorcee who watches porn all day.
Their job is law and constitution – not policy.
Congress writes the law – and in this case the law says “in”. If you want it to say something different – get congress to change the law.
Temporary protective status is as it says – Temporary. If it was not temporary – it would not be possible for presidents to grant it without an act of congress. Temporary means temporary. Again if you do not like that – go to congress.
The courts are absolutely positively completely not to have any role in policy – that is between the congress and the president – the ELECTED representatives of the people.
The courts do not exist to weigh in on policy – just to assure that the acts of congress and the president are constitutional, and that the president follows the law – NOT their prefered policy.
“Their job is law and constitution – not policy.” Law is policy. Think that through.
All we get from the minority distaff are bleeding heart, virtue signaling, touchy-feelyopinions on behalf of the wretched refuse from teaming shores, nothing to do with matters of law.
We? Define we?
We: sane, logical, peaceful people.
They or them: Insane, delusional, violent people.
I am happy to help you out their Skippy.
“we”, so, that excludes you then.
Awe did I hurt your feelings Skippy? Identifying liberal trolls as they them.
Sumbody is madddd…..
The minority justices and YOU are free to restructure the country your way – by winning the public debate, electing like minded representatives and changing the law.
Oh, like in China?
All we get from the minority distaff are insane delusional rant dissents.
Just like yours?
You cannot insist America is too racist and dangerous to trust with its own citizens, then demand judges erase statutory lines to rush more people into that same allegedly hostile system. That is not compassion, it is incoherent storytelling dressed up as law.
In the end, this is not interpretation, it is outcome‑driven judging that changes the meaning of the words whenever the preferred narrative needs saving.
Good job. Exactly what Turley wrote.
With the FIFA coverage in full swing, the delight of visitors who seem captivated by America’s spaces, freedoms, and opportunities stands in sharp contrast to the entitlement, resentment, and refusal to integrate or contribute that defines too many so-called “asylum” seekers.
Hey stupid the post is about SCOTUS.
Puzzling,
Well said and I agree!
Gawd dustoff, you have an uncanny ability to summarize Turely’s posts that highlight your idiocy.
Quick question Anonymous, do you think someone is “in” the United States for immigration purposes while they are still in Mexico? Yes or no.
Quick question hullbobby, do you think someone is “in” the United States for immigration purposes while they are still in Mexico? Yes or no.
You are not “in” anything for ANY purposes when you are outside.
No! Now it’s your turn.
But what if they’re in Canada?
What if they’re on a dingy in the Bering Sea?
What if they’re in a stationary spacecraft orbiting the USA?
Um… what if their spacecraft suddenly dropped out of orbit and landed in Seattle, are they “in” legally?
No they are in illegally.
You can play all the “what ifs” you want – they have nothing to do with this case.
People who are outside the US – whether in Mexico or Tanzania are not “in” the US.
No they are in illegally. Got proof? You can play all the kids word games all day (as you do 24/7/365), but your still the dumbest S_OB here. Surpassing Dustoff in fact.
BTW, no one stated Tanzania. And no one said they have something to do with that case.
Keep crying ano.
I’m loving it
driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: ‘IS.
Where have I heard this before. (-:
Gawd dustoff, you have an uncanny ability to summarize Turely’s posts that highlight your idiocy.
Ano
You need to try much harder.. Most of the time, you cay about everything.
PS. Learn to lighten up.
DustOff,
Just an observation, but if you have an “uncanny ability to summarize Turely’s posts,” most of us would conclude you have mastered reading comprehension.