Pabian Law Client Alert: Recent Immigration Actions (updated July 10, 2026)

Pabian Law Clients,

I hope everyone had a great week!  Below, please find our latest update on the recent immigration actions that have occurred in the last two weeks:

The end of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti

On June 25^th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Administration could end TPS for Haiti.  Although TPS Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) were set to expire on July 1^st, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) extended this date to July 10^th.  However, USCIS has not further extended this date and employers should immediately be reverifying impacted workers.  We do not anticipate any further extensions of TPS Haiti-related benefits after the Supreme Court ruling.

U.S. Supreme Court agrees with Administration to turn away asylum seekers at the southern border

On June 25^th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Administration could turn away asylum seekers at ports of entry at the southern border without violating federal immigration law.  Traditionally, under the law, border officials interview individuals who arrive and either allow them entry into or detain them in the United States where they will then go through immigration proceedings.  However, in its decision, the Court concluded that border officials may physically block an individual from entering the U.S. on certain grounds such as national security, foreign-policy, or criminal activity.  Anyone deemed inadmissible will be turned away without further hearing (expedited removal).  The Court ruled that the legal obligation of officers to interview and process asylum seekers only applies once a person has officially “arrived” into the U.S. and that by physically blocking them at the border, officers could effectively deny them the ability to apply for asylum.  Therefore, the ruling narrows who is allowed to initiate the asylum process by holding that the right only attaches once the person physically enters the United States.

The Court’s decision marks a departure from the country’s traditional immigration process by further empowering border officials to determine a person’s admissibility and signaling that removal hearings before an immigration court may become the exception rather than the rule.

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Administration’s end to birthright citizenship

On June 30^th, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Administration’s 2025 Executive Order ending birthright citizenship.  Birthright citizenship is the guarantee of citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.  The Court ruled that birthright citizenship cannot be questioned because the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution expressly provides for it.

Following the Court’s decision in a post on Truth Social, President Trump stated that he would like to push Congress to legislatively end birthright citizenship.  However, Congress does not have the unilateral power to do this.  It is also very unlikely this will happen due to the lengthy process of changing a constitutional amendment (approval of two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states).

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) update on searching electronic devices at ports of entry

CBP recently updated its guidelines for searching foreign travelers’ electronic devices at U.S. ports of entry.  According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the 2026 update seems to give CBP a more expansive approach to gathering information from travelers.  The most notable changes since the agency’s last directive in 2016 are listed below:

1. Adds additional activities to the “Purpose” section demonstrating the Administration’s expanded view of the alleged activities that may give rise to an electronic device search.
2. Officers no longer need “reasonable suspicion” to conduct an advanced search if there is a national security concern.
3. Officers using external equipment and a Filter Team (independent group of government attorneys/investigators who review materials seized during an investigation) to separate information found does not reclassify a basic search to an advanced search.

Overall, although much of the 2026 Directive remains the same as the 2016 one, certain updates and changes reflect the government’s broader approach to immigration policy through enhanced screening and vetting of foreign nationals.

We hope that you find these resources helpful as we all try to make sense of what is really happening in the world of immigration law.

Thanks, everyone, and have a great weekend!

Best regards,

Keith and the Pabian Law Team