This week’s federal policy roundup covers immigration enforcement, voting rights, civil liberties, religious freedom, public benefits, and the impact on our communities. Much of it came from the Supreme Court, which releases its most consequential decisions at the end of its yearly term each June. These rulings expanded the government’s power over immigrants, including one that could cause the largest loss of legal immigration status in U.S. history, while lower courts moved to limit federal control over elections, food assistance, and immigration arrests at courthouses.
Supreme Court Clears Way for the Potentially Largest Loss of Legal Immigration Status in U.S. History
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 25 in Mullin v. Doe that the Trump administration may move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Syria. The Court held that the TPS statute bars federal courts from reviewing nearly any challenge to how the government decides to end TPS, making it much harder to argue the administration failed to follow the law before terminating a designation. It also left constitutional equal protection claims alleging racial animus available but found the Haitian plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed, while leaving the Syrian equal protection claim for the lower courts.
The ruling removes the principal legal obstacle blocking the Haiti and Syria terminations, meaning affected TPS holders could lose work authorization and deportation protections even as the remaining constitutional claims continue. The decision also narrows the legal options available to the nearly 1.3 million TPS holders from 13 countries whose designations the administration has sought to end. You can learn more about this case by reading our post here and about all the designations and related litigation at our CUSP coalition litigation tracker.
Supreme Court Allows Border Officials to Turn Away Asylum Seekers
In a second decision on June 25 impacting immigrants, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that federal officials may turn away asylum seekers at ports of entry before they step onto U.S. soil, allowing the administration to reinstate a policy known as “metering.” The Court held that people standing on the Mexican side of the border have not yet legally “arrived in” the United States and therefore are not entitled to apply for asylum or be inspected under federal law. Three justices dissented, arguing Congress intended asylum protections to apply once someone presents themselves at a port of entry, regardless of whether border officials allow them to cross. If reinstated, the policy could again leave thousands waiting weeks or months in northern Mexico, where many previously faced dangerous conditions and violence, while increasing pressure to cross the border between ports of entry instead.
Supreme Court Weakens Protections for Returning Green Card Holders
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday in Blanch v. Lau that immigration officers no longer need clear and convincing evidence before deciding that a returning green card holder should lose the protections normally provided to lawful permanent residents reentering the United States. Federal immigration law allows that only in limited circumstances, including when officers determine the person committed certain offenses, such as crimes involving moral turpitude. The Court removed the higher evidentiary standard but did not explain whether pending criminal charges, an arrest, or some other evidence is enough for immigration officers to conclude that a green card holder committed one of those offenses before a criminal conviction. Green card holders placed into this separate process face a greater risk of detention and fewer procedural protections when challenging the government’s decision, while future courts determine the limits of the ruling.
Appeals Court Allows Government to Fast-Track Deportations Nationwide
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia allowed the Trump administration to resume its nationwide expansion of expedited removal, lifting a lower court injunction while the case continues. The policy allows immigration officials to place certain allegedly undocumented immigrants anywhere in the country, not just near the border, into expedited deportation proceedings without appearing before an immigration judge unless they establish at least two years of continuous U.S. presence. The ruling restores a policy that allows rapid deportations with little notice, leaving many immigrants with limited time to obtain legal counsel or gather documentation before removal and increasing the risk of erroneous deportations.
Judge Blocks Courthouse Immigration Arrests
A federal district court in California barred the Trump administration from making immigration arrests in immigration courthouses nationwide in a class-action lawsuit challenging the policy. The court ruled that ICE and the Justice Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act by rescinding longstanding restrictions on courthouse arrests without adequately explaining the change.
The ruling also reinstated ICE’s 12-hour limit on holding detainees in short-term facilities. The decision temporarily restores nationwide protections intended to prevent immigration enforcement from discouraging people from attending required court hearings, allowing immigrants to continue pursuing their cases without facing routine courthouse arrests while the administration appeals.
Courts Block Multiple Attempts to Expand Federal Control Over Elections
Federal courts issued a series of rulings this week limiting the Trump administration’s efforts to expand federal authority over voter registration records, voter verification, and election administration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling rejecting the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attempt to force Michigan to provide its unredacted statewide voter registration database, the first appellate ruling of its kind. The court rejected the administration’s argument that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 authorizes the DOJ to compel states to turn over voter registration records to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for citizenship verification.
Federal district courts also blocked two other major election initiatives. A Massachusetts judge permanently blocked key provisions of the administration’s March 2025 election executive order to impose new voter registration requirements, restrict military and overseas voting, and require states to reject mail ballots received after Election Day. Separately, a federal judge in D.C. barred DHS from using its expanded SAVE database to conduct bulk citizenship verification searches of voter rolls, finding the program likely violated federal privacy law and risked incorrectly identifying eligible U.S. citizens as noncitizens.
The administration also suffered another setback in Maryland, where a federal judge dismissed DOJ’s lawsuit seeking the state’s unredacted voter registration records, the ninth state to defeat similar litigation. Together, these rulings reinforce that Congress, not the executive branch, sets the rules governing federal elections, limits the administration’s ability to obtain sensitive voter data and expand federal oversight through executive action, and preserves states’ authority over election administration as litigation continues nationwide.
Texas Protest Case Broadens Use of Terrorism Laws Against Protest Activity
A federal judge in Texas has sentenced eight people to between 30 and 100 years in prison over a 2025 protest outside the Prairieland immigration detention center. The government tied the defendants to antifa, which is a political position against fascism, not an organization. There is no federal process for designating a domestic group as a terrorist organization, and no federal crime of domestic terrorism.
They charged the defendants with material support for terrorism, a law that requires no connection to any recognized terrorist group, which allowed the government to treat the protest as terrorism. One defendant received a 100-year sentence for firing a weapon and wounding a police officer. The other defendants did not fire any weapons, and the government’s own cooperating witnesses testified there was no plan for violence. To establish intent, prosecutors used the defendants’ zines, book club membership, artwork, clothing, and encrypted messages, none of it illegal. One defendant was not present at the protest at all and received a 30-year sentence for moving a box of his own zines afterwards. The legal theories used in this case may broaden how constitutionally protected speech, association, and organizing are scrutinized and used as evidence in future protest-related prosecutions.
Supreme Court Denies Damages Claims Under Federal Prison Religious Freedom Law
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not authorize lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual state prison officials who violate incarcerated people’s religious rights. The case arose after Louisiana prison officials forcibly shaved Damon Landor’s dreadlocks in 2020 despite his Rastafari beliefs and a federal court ruling recognizing the grooming policy violated federal law.
The Court did not dispute Landor’s account but held that Congress did not authorize personal-capacity damages claims under the statute because individual prison employees have not personally consented to liability. The ruling narrows enforcement of federal religious freedom protections in state prisons by limiting available remedies against individual officials, though injunctions against government entities and claims under other legal authorities remain available. The decision also distinguishes the statute from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, under which damages claims against individual federal officials remain permitted.
Court Blocks SNAP Snack Food Purchase Restrictions in Five States
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration Monday from implementing US Department of Agriculture approved waivers that would have allowed Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia to prohibit SNAP recipients from purchasing certain sugary drinks and, in some states, candy. The court found the Department’s waiver approval exceeded its authority because federal law only permits pilot projects to improve SNAP administration but not to redefine eligible foods based on nutritional goals. The plaintiffs had argued the restrictions would limit access to food and beverages they rely on to manage health conditions, including diabetes. The ruling does not affect similar waivers approved for 23 other states. The decision signals that broader changes to eligible SNAP food purchases may require congressional action rather than administrative waiver authority.
Supreme Court Makes It Harder to Hold Companies Liable for Missing Safety Warnings
The Supreme Court handed Bayer, the manufacturer of the Roundup weedkiller, a major victory by ruling 7-2 in Monsanto Company v. Durnell that people cannot use state law to require cancer warnings beyond those approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The decision is expected to block thousands of lawsuits against Bayer and reinforces the power of federal regulatory approvals to shield manufacturers from many state-law failure-to-warn claims. Farmworkers, landscapers, groundskeepers, pesticide applicators, and others with repeated exposure to these chemicals may face greater barriers to holding companies accountable and recovering compensation for alleged health harms. The dissent argued federal approval should not prevent states from requiring companies to adequately warn consumers about potential risks.
Interior Department Proposes Rollback of Federal Oil and Gas Drilling Regulations
The Interior Department proposed two rules this week that would reduce regulatory requirements for oil, gas, and coal development on federal lands. One would cut statewide oil and gas lease bond requirements from $500,000 to $25,000, reversing a Biden-era increase designed to ensure companies rather than taxpayers cover cleanup costs for abandoned wells. The second would eliminate the requirement that companies include methane waste minimization plans when applying for federal drilling permits, rolling back a key provision of a 2024 environmental rule. Lower bonding requirements could reduce costs for operators but increase the risk that taxpayers bear cleanup costs if companies become insolvent, while removing methane planning requirements could allow greater emissions from federal oil and gas operations. Both proposals are open for a 60-day public comment period before the Interior Department considers final rules.