Supreme Court Issues Big Immigration Ruling, Could Benefit Trump
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered a decisive win for immigration enforcement, ruling unanimously that federal courts do not have the authority to review visa revocations tied to sham marriages, reaffirming that such decisions rest squarely with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
In a 9–0 decision, the Court clarified a key distinction in immigration law: while courts may review initial visa denials, they lack jurisdiction to second-guess DHS once an approved visa has been revoked. The ruling underscores the executive branch’s broad discretion over immigration matters — a principle likely to bolster President Donald J. Trump’s second-term efforts to restore border security and aggressively enforce immigration laws.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, authored the opinion for the Court, emphasizing that Congress intentionally granted DHS sweeping authority in this area.
“Congress did not impose specific criteria or conditions limiting this authority, nor did it prescribe how or when the Secretary must act. Context reinforces the discretionary nature of §1155,” the majority wrote, referencing the statute governing visa revocations.
“Section 1155 is a quintessential grant of discretion: The Secretary ‘may’ revoke a previously approved visa petition ‘at any time’ for what the Secretary deems ‘good and sufficient cause,’” the ruling stated.
The case, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, centered on Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen whose husband lost his approved visa after DHS determined he had previously entered into a fraudulent marriage — a finding that permanently disqualified him from lawful permanent residency.
During oral arguments, several justices focused on statutory language that explicitly limits judicial review to initial visa denials, reinforcing Congress’s intent to shield DHS revocation decisions from court intervention. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Bouarfa’s husband could reapply for a visa and, if denied, seek judicial review at that stage.
Bouarfa’s attorney, Samir Deger-Sen, argued that forcing families to restart the process creates severe delays and hardship, a point highlighted in reporting by the Washington Examiner.
Immigration activists criticized the ruling, claiming it could further burden an immigration system already clogged with more than 3 million pending cases. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union warned that reduced judicial oversight could allow constitutional violations, including racial bias, to go unchecked — though no evidence of racial animus or discrimination was found in the Bouarfa case itself.
The Supreme Court’s ruling comes amid a broader legal shift favoring 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 — a major setback for local officials who attempted to obstruct federal immigration operations.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2019 executive order from King County, Washington, that sought to block deportation flights at King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field. The court found the county had violated its contractual obligations by refusing access for removals.
That decision further clears the runway — literally and legally — for President Trump’s renewed deportation push. Having won a decisive mandate from voters, Trump has pledged to begin large-scale removals of illegal aliens, despite anticipated resistance from left-wing open-borders groups.
Trump’s border enforcement chief, Tom Homan — a veteran Border Patrol agent and former acting ICE director during Trump’s first term — has made clear that federal law will be enforced, even if state or local officials attempt to interfere.
“But look, me and the Denver mayor we agree on one thing. He’s willing to go to jail. I’m willing to put him in jail,” Homan told Fox News host Sean Hannity earlier this month. “There’s a statute, Title 8, United States Code 1324 – AAA. And what it says is it’s a felony if you knowingly harbor and conceal illegal aliens from immigration authorities. It is also a felony to impede a federal law enforcement officer.”
“So if you don’t want to help, that’s fine. He can get the hell out of the way, but we’re going to go do the job. President Trump has a mandate from the American people. We’ve got to secure this country and save American lives,” Homan added.
Taken together, the rulings signal a judiciary increasingly unwilling to interfere with executive authority on immigration — a development that strengthens President Trump’s hand as his administration moves to reassert control over the nation’s borders.