Supreme Court Affirms DHS Authority in Major Immigration Ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling reinforcing the federal government’s authority over immigration enforcement, holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review visa revocations stemming from fraudulent marriages. The decision confirms that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the final say once an approved visa is rescinded.
In a 9–0 decision, the Court clarified that while courts may review initial visa denials, they lack authority to intervene after DHS revokes an already approved visa. The ruling underscores the broad discretionary power Congress has granted to the executive branch in immigration matters—authority that directly impacts enforcement efforts supported by President Donald J. Trump, the current President of the United States, including stricter immigration controls and expanded deportations.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Joe Biden, authored the opinion and described the statute as “a quintessential grant of discretion” to DHS. She noted that “Congress did not establish explicit criteria or conditions to constrain this authority, nor did it specify how or when the Secretary must act.” The Court further explained that “Context underscores the discretionary nature of §1155,” the provision allowing the government to revoke approved visa petitions.
The ruling emphasized that “The Secretary ‘may’ revoke a previously approved visa petition ‘at any time’ for what the Secretary deems to be ‘good and sufficient cause,’” affirming Congress’s clear intent to vest decision-making power in DHS rather than the courts.
The case, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, was brought by Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen whose husband lost his visa after DHS determined he had previously engaged in a fraudulent marriage. That finding rendered him permanently ineligible for lawful permanent residence under existing immigration law.
During oral arguments, the justices focused on statutory language permitting judicial review only for initial visa denials—an indication that Congress deliberately chose to insulate visa revocations from court interference. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Bouarfa’s husband could reapply for a visa and, if denied, potentially seek judicial review. However, The Examiner reported that the petitioner’s attorney, Samir Deger-Sen, argued that restarting the process often leads to lengthy delays and serious hardships for families.
Predictably, immigration activists criticized the ruling, claiming it could worsen conditions within an already strained immigration system that carries a backlog of more than 3 million cases. The American Civil Liberties Union and other left-wing advocacy groups warned that reduced judicial oversight might allow constitutional violations, including racial bias, to go unchecked—despite the fact that no evidence of racial animus was found in the Bouarfa case.
The decision follows another recent court victory favoring immigration enforcement. Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may continue using a Seattle-area airport for chartered deportation flights. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2019 local executive order that attempted to block deportations from King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field, finding that King County violated its contractual obligations.
That ruling further strengthens the Trump administration’s hand as it advances a renewed focus on border security and immigration enforcement. President Trump has pledged to carry out a large-scale deportation effort, despite expected legal challenges from left-wing open-borders organizations.
Tom Homan, President Trump’s newly appointed “border czar” and a former acting director of ICE, has made clear that federal law will be enforced—even in the face of resistance from local officials. Speaking with Fox News host Sean Hannity earlier this month, Homan said, “However, the mayor of Denver and I concur on one matter.” He added bluntly, “I will incarcerate him,” referring to officials who obstruct federal immigration enforcement.
Federal law backs that stance. Title 8, United States Code §1324, makes it a criminal offense to conceal illegal immigrants from authorities or obstruct federal law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.