The Supreme Court of the United States issues relatively few immigration decisions each term, but the ones it does issue carry significant weight. Several rulings from the past few years have changed how USCIS, ICE, and immigration courts handle everything from deportation priorities to asylum processing. Understanding what the Court actually decided - and what it did not - helps applicants and their families anticipate real-world consequences.
Deportation Priorities and the Limits of Executive Discretion
In United States v. Texas (2023), the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to challenge the Biden administration’s enforcement priority guidelines issued under a memorandum from DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Those guidelines directed ICE to focus deportation resources on three categories: people who posed threats to national security, public safety, or had recently crossed the border unlawfully.
The practical effect of that ruling was significant. It reaffirmed that the executive branch retains wide discretion over immigration enforcement priorities, and that states generally cannot force the federal government to arrest or deport specific individuals. For people with final orders of removal who had remained in the country under informal stays, the ruling signaled that prosecutorial discretion - however it is exercised by any given administration - remains a legitimate tool.
That said, the ruling did not permanently protect anyone from removal. Enforcement priorities shift with each administration. Under the current administration, ICE has substantially expanded its enforcement scope beyond the three priority categories from the Biden era. The Court’s decision in United States v. Texas settled the legal question of standing, not the underlying policy question of who should be deported.
For pending cases, the ruling has had a filtering effect. Immigration judges and ICE attorneys have used prosecutorial discretion in some cases to administratively close or dismiss proceedings against individuals who do not fit active enforcement priorities - though this practice is far less common under current DHS guidance than it was in 2022 or 2023.
Asylum Processing and Expedited Removal
The Court’s 2022 decision in Biden v. Texas addressed the “Remain in Mexico” policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). The Court held 5-4 that the administration had the legal authority to terminate MPP under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C), which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security discretion - but not a mandate - to return certain asylum seekers to Mexico while their cases proceed.
The ruling reinforced that MPP is a discretionary tool, not a statutory requirement. After the Court’s decision, the Biden administration officially terminated MPP in August 2022. However, the program was reinstated in modified form under subsequent executive action in 2025. Anyone currently enrolled in MPP must appear at designated ports of entry for their immigration court hearings and typically has limited access to legal counsel, given the logistical difficulty of preparing a case from across the border.
A separate but related issue is the use of expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020), the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that asylum seekers subject to expedited removal have limited rights to habeas corpus review in federal court. The Court held that the Due Process Clause does not require the government to provide a more elaborate removal process than what Congress established in the expedited removal statute.
The practical consequence of Thuraissigiam is that individuals screened out during expedited removal - meaning they did not pass a “credible fear” interview - have very limited options to challenge that determination in federal court. USCIS asylum officers conduct the initial credible fear screening, and a negative finding can be reviewed by an immigration judge, but further federal court review is narrow. Anyone placed in expedited removal proceedings should request a credible fear interview immediately and should clearly state any fear of persecution or torture to the screening officer.
The 2024 executive actions expanding expedited removal to apply to individuals encountered anywhere in the United States - not just at or near the border within 14 days of entry - further extended the reach of Thuraissigiam’s limiting logic. Under 8 C.F.R. § 235.3, individuals subject to expedited removal who cannot demonstrate continuous presence in the US for at least two years face a streamlined removal process with limited procedural protections.
Noncitizen Voting Rights and State Ballot Measures
Immigration law and election law collided in cases involving state-level voter registration requirements. While the Supreme Court has not yet issued a definitive ruling on state laws requiring documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration, the Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013) held that the National Voter Registration Act preempts state laws that require documentation beyond what the federal form asks for. Several states have continued to push for stricter requirements, and related litigation is working through lower courts.
For noncitizens, the relevant point is straightforward: federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections under 18 U.S.C. § 611, with criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment. A noncitizen conviction for illegal voting can also result in deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6) and can permanently bar naturalization.
What Applicants Should Watch in the Current Term
The Court’s current term includes Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, which was decided in November 2024. The Court held unanimously that USCIS’s discretionary denial of an I-130 visa petition - in this case, based on a finding that a marriage was fraudulent - is not subject to judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The ruling means that when USCIS exercises its discretionary authority to deny a petition, federal courts generally cannot review that denial.
For family-based immigration, this is a meaningful limitation. If USCIS denies an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on discretionary grounds - particularly in cases involving prior visa fraud findings under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) - the petitioner’s remedies are largely administrative. The petitioner can file a motion to reopen or reconsider with USCIS or appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but federal court review is blocked for discretionary decisions.
The practical takeaway from Bouarfa is that complete and accurate documentation from the start of an I-130 filing matters more than ever. If USCIS questions the bona fides of a marriage, responding thoroughly to any Request for Evidence (RFE) is the opportunity to address those concerns before a denial issues.
Keeping Up with Binding Court Decisions
Immigration law changes through multiple channels at once: congressional legislation, executive action, agency regulation, and judicial decisions. Supreme Court rulings are binding on all lower courts and all federal agencies, so a decision in one circuit’s case applies nationally once the Court acts. Lower court decisions - from the First through Eleventh Circuits and the D.C. Circuit - bind only within their geographic jurisdiction, which is why the same set of facts can produce different outcomes depending on where a case is filed.
The BIA publishes its precedent decisions at justice.gov, and USCIS maintains a policy manual at uscis.gov that is updated to reflect changes in the law. Anyone tracking how Supreme Court rulings affect a specific application type - asylum, family-based petitions, or removal defense - should check the USCIS Policy Manual directly, as the agency updates its guidance chapters when court decisions require it.
This article provides general information only. Readers with specific immigration situations should consult a licensed immigration attorney.
The USCIS Policy Manual is available at uscis.gov/policy-manual and is organized by volume, with Volume 7 covering Victims of Abuse and Volume 8 covering Admissibility, among other topics relevant to pending court cases.
