The Supreme Court's ruling in Mullin v. Doe this month will put 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians at risk of deportation, marking a significant shift in how courts evaluate immigration policy challenges and racial discrimination claims. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, establishes a higher evidentiary threshold for plaintiffs alleging racial animus in government policy decisions.
The Court's Reasoning
Justice Alito wrote that "none of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications." He continued, "One may oppose TPS and favor tighter restrictions on immigration for economic or other reasons that have nothing to do with race." This reasoning emphasizes that immigration policy can be evaluated on fiscal and security grounds independent of racial considerations.
The Trump administration had made statements including that immigrants had "bad genes," were genetically predisposed to crime, and were "poisoning the blood of our country" and coming "from Africa, from Asia, all over the world." Trump also said that allowing in Haitian immigrants was a "death wish for our country," that "they all have AIDS," accused them of eating household pets, referred to Haiti as a "filthy, dirty, disgusting" place and a "shithole" country, and complained that America does not take in enough people from Norway and Sweden. The administration had implemented what it called a whites-only refugee policy that accepts solely South Africans of European descent. Much of this evidence, including statements by Kristi Noem, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security, was presented to the Supreme Court.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, "The evidence is there, plain to see, in the President's statements, which the majority (and for that matter, his own lawyers) cannot even bear to repeat." Shortly after the decision, White House adviser Stephen Miller said, "We can finally remove these Haitian illegal migrants."
Legal Implications Beyond Immigration
Guy-Uriel Charles, a professor at Harvard Law, said Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion "basically sets up an impossible burden for plaintiffs because race is rarely going to be the sole justification" for a policy. Aderson Francois, a law professor at Georgetown University, said, "As long as there is a plausible basis—any plausible articulable basis—for the government's action, then the Court will look to that basis as sufficient," even in the face of evidence that government actors were motivated by animus. Melissa Murray, a law professor at NYU, said, "This Court sees race when it wants to, and blinds itself to racism in most other cases."
The Roberts Court had been turning anti-discrimination law upside down for years, according to the article. In May's Louisiana v. Callais one month ago, the Court determined that not allowing Louisiana's government to dilute Black votes was racist. Alito had insisted that forcing the state to draw a second majority-Black congressional district would be an "unconstitutional racial gerrymander" because Republicans were entitled to discriminate against Black voters if they argued that their purpose was partisan instead of racist. The Court reaffirmed that position in a subsequent case dealing with Alabama after a lower court had found ample evidence of deliberate racial discrimination, as opposed to the discriminatory effect of the Louisiana map.
Alito had in a 2009 case on affirmative action 17 years ago, Ricci v. DeStefano, dismissed as "pretextual" New Haven's reasoning for throwing out test results in which white firefighters performed better than their Black colleagues. When a Virginia school implemented a race-neutral, class-based affirmative-action policy, Alito insisted that the policy was by definition racist because it changed the demographic composition of the student body.
New ICE Leadership Nomination
Separately, President Donald Trump on Saturday said he is nominating Lance Schroyer, a former Oklahoma state trooper, as the next director of Immigration and Customs and Enforcement. Trump said on his Truth Social platform that Schroyer is a former U.S. Marine and a "PATRIOT with real operational experience," and called him a "proven leader with DECADES of experience locking up the worst of the worst."
Schroyer hails from the same home state as the new Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, a former congressman who started in his role four months ago in March. Earlier this month Mullin brought Schroyer onstage at a National Sheriffs' Association event, calling him a "good friend of mine" and noting DHS had recently hired him. On Saturday, Mullin praised Schroyer in a statement highlighting the former trooper's 29-year career and his work with federal and state partners on a U.S. immigration enforcement program. Mullin said, "President Trump made a great pick, and I'm confident Lance's strong leadership and firsthand experience will empower the men and women of ICE to deport criminal illegal aliens, secure the homeland, and protect the American people."
Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former senior ICE official, said prior confirmed ICE directors have often been attorneys, though some state and local law enforcement officials have also been nominated, and said Schroyer's background in Oklahoma suggested Markwayne Mullin likely had influence over the pick. John Torres, another senior ICE official, said Schroyer faces an uphill climb toward Senate confirmation but that his experience at the state and local level instead of the federal level might help.
Agency Expansion and Leadership Transition
Schroyer's nomination came after former ICE director Todd Lyons resigned less than one month ago at the end of May. David Venturella, a former executive at a private prison operator, has been serving as the acting head of the agency. Venturella is expected to stay on as acting director until Schroyer is Senate confirmed, according to a DHS official speaking on condition of anonymity. ICE has not had a Senate-confirmed director since the Obama administration.
If confirmed, Schroyer will lead ICE at a time when the public mood has soured on Trump's immigration crackdown, which sent surges of federal immigration officers into American cities to round up immigrants. Those raids sent tensions soaring and prompted clashes between protesters and law enforcement, leading to the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis earlier this year.
Trump returned to the White House on a promise of mass deportations, and ICE has been a central executor of that vision. The agency is undergoing massive growth from a one-time injection of $75 billion last year, which has allowed for the hiring of 12,000 officers and increased detention capacity. Mullin has promised to keep his department out of the headlines and has indicated a softer tone on immigration, although he is expected to align with the president's priorities on mass deportations. ICE has not had a Senate-confirmed director since the Obama administration, a result of polarizing politics around the agency and immigration policy.
Why This Matters:
The Supreme Court's decision in Mullin v. Doe establishes a legal framework that prioritizes policy justifications over allegations of discriminatory intent, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of immigration cases. The ruling provides the executive branch with broader latitude to implement border security and immigration enforcement measures based on economic, security, or policy rationales. The $75 billion investment in ICE represents a substantial commitment of taxpayer resources toward immigration enforcement infrastructure, including 12,000 new officers and expanded detention facilities. Schroyer's nomination, if confirmed, would provide the first Senate-confirmed ICE leadership since the Obama administration, potentially bringing greater institutional stability and accountability to an agency that has operated under acting directors for years. The combination of judicial deference to executive immigration policy and expanded enforcement capacity signals a fundamental shift in how the federal government balances border security concerns with legal challenges to its methods.