The Supreme Court’s docket has included several significant immigration cases over the past few years, and the outcomes have produced concrete changes in how USCIS, ICE, and immigration courts operate. These are not abstract legal shifts - they affect which noncitizens can be detained, how long removal proceedings take, and what rights individuals retain while their cases are pending.
Understanding what the Court has actually decided, and what those decisions mean procedurally, helps applicants and their families make more realistic plans. This article covers three major decisions and traces their direct effects on immigration practice.
Readers should consult a licensed immigration attorney for guidance specific to their circumstances.
Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez (2022): Limits on Federal Court Intervention in Detention Cases
What the Court Decided
In Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543 (2022), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal district courts cannot issue class-wide injunctions requiring immigration judges to hold bond hearings for certain detained noncitizens. The case involved individuals held under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), a provision that allows detention of people who have been ordered removed but whose removal has been delayed.
The Ninth Circuit had previously upheld lower court orders requiring the government to provide periodic bond hearings to this class of detainees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) strips lower federal courts of the authority to issue injunctions that operate against the government’s application of certain removal statutes on a class-wide basis. Individual habeas corpus petitions, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, remain available - but each person must file separately.
Practical Effects
The practical consequence is significant for people in prolonged detention. Before this ruling, class-action litigation had been one mechanism for challenging long-term detention without individualized hearings. That avenue is now closed in federal district courts. A noncitizen detained under § 1231(a)(6) who believes their continued detention is unlawful must file an individual habeas petition in federal court, which is slower and more resource-intensive than class-based relief.
Immigration attorneys have responded by filing more individual habeas petitions in federal districts where courts have been receptive to such claims. The process requires demonstrating that continued detention is not reasonably necessary to ensure removal, a standard drawn from the Court’s earlier decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), which set a presumptive six-month limit on post-order detention.
Biden v. Texas (2022): The Court Weighs In on DHS Enforcement Priorities
What the Court Decided
In Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785 (2022), the Supreme Court addressed a narrower but procedurally significant question: whether the Biden administration was required to continue enforcing the “Remain in Mexico” policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). A lower court had ordered the administration to reimplement MPP after finding the termination memo legally defective. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the administration had followed the correct procedural steps under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in issuing a more detailed termination memorandum.
The decision confirmed that DHS retains broad discretionary authority to end or modify enforcement programs, provided it follows APA notice-and-comment requirements or produces a sufficiently reasoned explanation. The ruling did not declare MPP itself lawful or unlawful - it focused on whether DHS had adequately explained its decision to end the program.
Practical Effects
With MPP no longer in effect, asylum seekers who would have been returned to Mexico to await their immigration court hearings are instead processed under different procedures. Many are placed in expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) or paroled into the United States while their cases proceed. This has increased demand on immigration courts, which already carry a backlog exceeding three million pending cases as of mid-2024, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University.
For applicants with pending asylum claims, the elimination of MPP also affected where their cases were filed. Cases initiated under MPP in certain immigration courts were administratively closed and later re-calendared, causing scheduling delays that in some instances stretched additional hearings by one to three years.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020): DACA’s Procedural Survival
What the Court Decided
Although decided in 2020, DHS v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), continues to shape DACA’s legal landscape in ways that affect current applicants. The Court held 5-4 that the Trump administration’s 2017 rescission of DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA because the acting DHS secretary’s memo failed to adequately address the reliance interests of current DACA recipients - hundreds of thousands of individuals who had built careers, mortgages, and families around the program’s protections.
The Court did not rule that DACA itself is lawful as a matter of immigration law. It ruled only on the procedure used to end it. That narrow holding has kept DACA technically alive while exposing it to ongoing legal challenge.
Where DACA Stands Now
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in State of Texas v. United States in October 2022 that DACA is unlawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act, though it left the program in place for existing recipients pending further review. As of early 2025, USCIS continues to accept renewal applications from current DACA holders but is barred by court order from approving initial applications from first-time applicants.
The DHS published a final rule codifying DACA in the Federal Register on October 31, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 53152), an attempt to place the program on firmer administrative ground. That rule is also subject to ongoing litigation in the Fifth Circuit, and its ultimate fate remains undecided. New applicants who have never held DACA - even those who meet all eligibility criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 236.22 - cannot currently obtain initial grants.
What Recipients Should Do Now
Current DACA holders should file renewal applications as early as USCIS permits. USCIS recommends filing Form I-821D and Form I-765 together, no more than 150 days before the current period of deferred action expires. USCIS’s current processing time for DACA renewals is listed on its website and has ranged from five to ten months in recent reporting periods, making early filing essential to avoid gaps in work authorization.
Recipients should also verify their Advance Parole status carefully before any international travel. Travel on Advance Parole (Form I-131) while DACA litigation is ongoing carries risk; a trip abroad followed by a change in program status could affect re-entry. Any DACA holder considering international travel should consult an attorney before booking flights.
The Broader Pattern
Across these three decisions, a consistent pattern emerges: the Court has tended to limit broad, class-wide judicial oversight of immigration enforcement while preserving individual procedural rights and requiring agencies to follow APA rulemaking standards when changing policy. This means individuals bear more responsibility for pursuing their own legal remedies, rather than benefiting from system-wide reforms imposed by courts.
The next Supreme Court term is expected to include at least one major immigration case involving birthright citizenship, following executive action taken in January 2025. Multiple federal courts issued injunctions blocking that order, and the government has appealed, making Supreme Court review likely within the current calendar year.
For anyone with an active immigration case, checking the USCIS case status portal at uscis.gov and the EOIR immigration court portal at justice.gov/eoir are the most direct ways to track how policy shifts are affecting individual proceedings.
