The Supreme Court’s immigration rulings are beginning to translate into practical consequences for immigrants, employers and border policy, after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said Sunday that migrants living in the United States under temporary protections should seek permanent status or prepare to leave.

The remarks followed two decisions issued Thursday that together handed the Trump administration major victories on immigration. In one case, the court cleared the way for the administration to end Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for Haitians and Syrians. In the other, the justices sided with the government in a dispute over asylum “metering,” a practice that allows border officers to restrict the number of people processed at U.S.-Mexico ports of entry.

The TPS decision has the most immediate effect on people already inside the United States. TPS is a humanitarian designation Congress created for nationals of countries affected by armed conflict, natural disaster or other extraordinary conditions. It allows eligible immigrants to live and work legally in the United States while the designation remains in effect, but it does not itself provide permanent residency.

For Haitians and Syrians, the ruling weakens the court orders that had paused termination of their protections while litigation continued. Reuters reported that the case affects more than 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians, while also carrying implications for the broader TPS population because the court accepted the government’s position that the statute sharply limits judicial review of TPS termination decisions.

That does not mean every affected person can be deported immediately. Some TPS holders may have pending asylum applications, family-based petitions, other immigration cases, or no final removal order. Others may seek new forms of relief after losing TPS, though those options depend on individual facts, deadlines and immigration-court discretion. The immediate certainty is narrower: once TPS-based protection ends, affected immigrants risk losing work authorization and protection from deportation tied to that status.

The timing matters for employers as well as families. TPS holders work in health care, manufacturing, food service, construction, elder care and other sectors in states with large Haitian and Syrian communities. Employers generally must verify that workers remain authorized to work, and the practical effect of TPS termination can unfold unevenly depending on reverification schedules, federal guidance and whether employees hold another valid status.

The political reaction has already crossed party lines. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, said Sunday that returning Haitians to Haiti is unsafe and that removing Haitian workers would hurt Ohio communities and industries, including health care. His comments reflected a wider tension in the aftermath of the ruling: the court resolved a legal question about executive authority, but the policy consequences will be felt in local labor markets, schools, churches and families.

The administration’s position is that temporary status should remain temporary. Mullin told CNN that migrants with TPS should apply for permanent status if they qualify or return to their countries of origin, saying the government would assist with travel and resettlement payments. Immigration advocates counter that Haiti and Syria remain unstable and that many TPS holders have lived in the United States for years, built families and passed background checks to remain eligible.

The State Department’s own travel advisories underscore the complexity. Haiti remains under a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory citing risks including crime, kidnapping, terrorist activity, civil unrest and limited health care. Syria is also under a Level 4 advisory because of terrorism, unrest, kidnapping, crime and armed conflict. The administration can still argue that TPS designations no longer satisfy statutory requirements, but the advisories give opponents a ready basis for arguing that return conditions remain dangerous.

The second ruling, involving asylum metering, affects people who are not yet inside the United States. The legal dispute turned on whether migrants stopped on the Mexican side of the border had “arrived in” the United States for purposes of asylum and inspection rights under immigration law. The Supreme Court held that they had not arrived in the country until they crossed the border, meaning federal officers are not required to inspect or process them while they remain on the Mexico side.

Metering has a long policy history. U.S. border officials began limiting processing at some ports during the Obama administration when arrivals rose and port capacity was strained. The practice expanded during Trump’s first term and was later rescinded under President Joe Biden. The latest ruling does not automatically restart metering everywhere, but it gives the administration legal room to use the tool again if officials decide conditions warrant it.

For asylum seekers, the difference is significant. Without metering, someone who reaches a U.S. port of entry and requests asylum has a stronger claim to inspection and processing. With metering available, border officials may be able to control the flow by requiring people to wait outside U.S. territory, where access to counsel, shelter and security can be limited. Advocates warn that such waiting periods can expose migrants to violence and encourage crossings between ports of entry.

The rulings also change the posture of future litigation. Lower courts had been central to slowing or blocking parts of the administration’s immigration agenda, including TPS terminations and asylum restrictions. The Supreme Court’s decisions signal that, at least in these statutory contexts, the justices are inclined to give immigration agencies and the executive branch substantial room to act.

That shift puts more pressure on Congress. Lawmakers could amend TPS rules, create adjustment pathways for long-term TPS holders, restrict or authorize metering, or leave the current balance in place. Without legislation, the practical path will run through agency implementation, immigration-court backlogs and further lawsuits testing narrower constitutional or procedural claims.

For immigrant communities, the result is a period of uncertainty rather than a single overnight change. Haitians and Syrians with TPS face the clearest near-term risk, but the reasoning may influence cases involving other countries. At the border, asylum seekers may confront a system in which access depends more heavily on capacity decisions by federal officials. For the nation, the decisions mark a broad recalibration of immigration power toward the executive branch, with consequences likely to play out across courts, workplaces and communities for months.