(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — The Department of Homeland Security praised three 6-3 Supreme Court rulings on June 25, 2026, saying the decisions strengthened the administration’s authority over asylum, the removal of lawful permanent residents with criminal cases, and the termination of Temporary Protected Status.

DHS General Counsel James Percival said the rulings gave the department “several more important tools” on border enforcement and removals. In a statement released Thursday, the department said the decisions “reaffirm several Trump Administration policies and decisions to secure the homeland and remove criminal illegal aliens from the country.”

“These three rulings are all victories for the rule of law and common sense,” Percival said. “This includes barring aliens from applying for asylum if they haven’t set foot in the United States, making it easier to remove lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who commit a crime, and reaffirming that Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was always supposed to be temporary and can be cancelled at the appropriate time. Thanks to these decisions, we now have several more important tools to continue securing our borders.”

One case, Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, addressed how border officials treat green card holders returning to the United States after criminal allegations. DHS said the Court held that U.S. Customs and Border Protection does not need clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that person as an applicant for admission.

That holding allows CBP to defer inspection of lawful permanent residents with pending criminal charges until after conviction. Once a conviction is secured, DHS said, the government can use it as the basis for removal.

The ruling affects a large population. The United States has 12.8 million lawful permanent residents, and the decision means travel abroad can trigger closer review at reentry for green card holders who face criminal accusations.

A second case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, focused on asylum access at the southern border. DHS said the Supreme Court held that an alien standing in Mexico has not “arrived in the United States” by attempting and then failing to set foot on American soil.

Under that ruling, a person who remains in Mexico cannot apply for asylum and does not have a right to inspection by an immigration officer. DHS said the decision reversed a Ninth Circuit ruling that had found aliens outside the United States land border eligible for asylum.

The practical reach is broad along the border. Migrants waiting in Mexico are legally barred from claiming asylum rights until they successfully enter the United States, and the ruling endorses metering and wait-in-Mexico policies that prevent them from stepping onto U.S. soil to seek protection.

The third case, Mullin v. Doe, dealt with the administration’s power to end Temporary Protected Status for two countries. DHS said the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can cancel TPS designations for Haiti and Syria.

DHS said the Court also determined that federal law generally bars judicial review of future TPS designation and termination decisions. The ruling further found that challengers to those decisions are unlikely to succeed on claims that terminations are due to racial discrimination.

The decision immediately touches hundreds of thousands of people. DHS said the ruling covers approximately 350,000 Haitians and 4,000 Syrians who had protection under TPS, a humanitarian status that allows people from designated countries to live and work in the United States when conditions at home make return unsafe.

The administration cast the ruling as a reaffirmation that TPS was never intended to be permanent. DHS said the Court recognized that the protection is temporary by design and that the executive branch has broad discretion to decide when conditions in a country have improved enough to end the designation.

That reasoning extends beyond Haiti and Syria. The United States has about 1.3 million TPS beneficiaries, and the ruling sets a precedent the administration can use as it weighs protections for residents from 17 countries.

DHS linked the three rulings to a broader border and enforcement agenda under President Trump and Secretary Mullin. Percival said the decisions reinforce restrictions on asylum outside the border, expand removal tools for permanent residents with criminal convictions, and confirm that TPS can be terminated “at the appropriate time.”

The department’s statement used sharper political language as well, saying the rulings showed judges had “trying and failing to thwart President Trump’s agenda, only to be overruled by the Supreme Court.” DHS added that, under Trump and Mullin, it would continue to “uphold the law and keep the American people safe.”

Each case turns on a different part of immigration law, but together they widen executive authority in ways that touch border processing, admission rules for returning residents, and humanitarian protection programs. The combined effect reaches people seeking asylum at ports of entry, green card holders who travel while criminal cases are pending, and TPS holders whose status depends on periodic renewal decisions by DHS.

For lawful permanent residents, the Blanche ruling centers on admission rather than deportation alone. By allowing CBP to withhold a returning resident’s ordinary admission while charges remain unresolved, the decision gives the government more room to place that person on parole status and later rely on a conviction to justify removal.

For asylum seekers at the southern border, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado draws the line at physical entry. DHS said a person in Mexico has not arrived in the United States, even after attempting to cross, and therefore cannot invoke the asylum process or compel inspection by U.S. officers while still outside the border.

For TPS holders, Mullin v. Doe narrows the room for court challenges after DHS moves to terminate a designation. That matters for populations that have lived and worked in the country for years under repeated redesignations, including Haitian and Syrian beneficiaries whose protections now rest on a Supreme Court ruling that federal law generally blocks review of future termination decisions.

DHS posted its statement at its newsroom page and linked the decisions to ongoing enforcement efforts. USCIS also published an update on the decisions’ effect on adjudications in an archived notice on its website, signaling that the rulings will shape how immigration agencies handle cases after Thursday’s Supreme Court action.