Court clears way for administration to revive
restrictive policy for asylum seekers
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for the Trump administration to potentially revive an immigration policy once used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The justices, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a lower court order blocking the practice that limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day, first under the Obama administration and then expanded during President Donald Trump's first term.
Advocates said the tactic created a humanitarian crisis as thousands of people settled in unsafe makeshift shelters to await their turn. The Trump administration said it was necessary to deal with an increase of asylum seekers at the border.
The policy is not in place now, though authorities have imposed other restrictions on asylum seekers. The Department of Homeland Security did not say if it plans to revive it, but applauded the ruling. "This decision opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border," said James Percival, the agency's general counsel.
The administration argued that metering is a critical tool that's been used by presidents of both parties and should stay available. Federal attorneys say people turned away at the border could come back later, though lines were thousands of people long when the policy was in place before.
The case is one of several immigration suits the court is considering this term, including Trump's push to restrict birthright citizenship. The high court also allowed his administration to end deportation for migrants fleeing instability and armed conflict on Thursday.
Under federal law, migrants who arrive in the U.S. must be able to apply for asylum and be screened for fear of persecution in their home countries.
The Justice Department argued that people stopped by authorities haven't arrived in the country, so immigration agents don't have to let them apply.
The court's conservative majority agreed. "A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door," Justice Samuel Alito wrote.
But attorneys for people seeking asylum say the law has long meant anyone arriving at a port of entry should be screened, and blocking arrivals disregards the nation's ideals.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the bench, saying that the majority's opinion "regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty."
The decision could also give people a "perverse incentive" to enter the country illegally if they can't count on being able to legally apply for asylum at a port of entry, she said, a concern that Alito's opinion said was overblown.
In an unusual exchange, Alito voiced a response after she finished speaking. He expressed surprise that she had read her dissent out loud and defended his opinion by pointing out that the policy had been used during two presidential administrations. "I won't add anything more to that," Alito said.
Metering was first used under President Barack Obama when large numbers of Haitians appeared at the main crossing to San Diego from Tijuana, Mexico. It was expanded to all border crossings from Mexico during Trump's first term in the White House.
It ended in 2020 when the government introduced greater restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, and President Joe Biden formally rescinded it in 2021.
The same year, a California-based federal judge found that metering violated the asylum seekers' rights and the law requiring screening. A divided appeals court panel affirmed the ruling but nearly half of judges on the full San Francisco-based court voted to rehear it, a strong signal that might have caught the attention of the Supreme Court.
Attorneys with the group Democracy Forward first brought the case, and condemned Thursday's ruling. "We are disappointed in the Court's decision and call on all Americans to demand that our government protect the families the Court today decided to keep in harm's way," said President and CEO Skye Perryman.
They represented the group Al Otro Lado, whose executive director said the decision would mean a "hardening of borders to keep out the most vulnerable" that is "sure to result in many more lives lost."
U.S. law allows people seeking refuge to apply for asylum once they are on American soil, regardless of whether they came legally. To qualify for asylum, they must show a fear of persecution in their homeland for specific reasons, like race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
People who are eventually granted asylum can't be deported. They can legally work, bring in immediate family, apply for legal residency and seek citizenship.
–––
Associated Press writers Fatima Hussein and Rebecca Santana contributed to this report.
Ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits
against the maker of Roundup weedkiller
By Lindsay Whitehurst and David A. Lieb
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the maker of Roundup weedkiller Thursday in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.
The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against Bayer, a Germany-based agrochemical manufacturer that acquired Roundup's original producer, Monsanto, in 2018.
The decision is a victory for President Donald Trump's administration, which argued in support of Bayer. But it provoked outrage from allies in the " Make America Healthy Again" movement who want to rein in pesticide use.
The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, held that Roundup cannot be sued in state courts for failure to warn because federal regulators have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label. Though focused on Roundup, the ruling could affect similar health claims against other pesticide products.
"This decision is good for American farmers who help feed the world," Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said. "It provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply."
Though Bayer said the ruling should result in the dismissal of failure-to-warn lawsuits, the company said it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.
The ruling was denounced by environmental groups and lawyers representing people who believe they were harmed by Roundup.
"This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides," said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is a claimant's representative in the settlement. But he said a settlement still would allow some people to receive compensation.
The decision "is a tragic setback for public and environmental health," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a health and environmental group.
A sickened gardener had won $1 million
The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell. He developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood association's "spray guy," using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community.
A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. But Durnell never received the money as his case was appealed. Durnell, 75, said Thursday that his cancer is in remission, and he will be fine without the money.
But "there are thousands of cases that are like mine that will not see court now," Durnell said. "So that is the biggest disappointment for me."
There is still fierce debate about whether Roundup's key ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as "probably carcinogenic" in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it's not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.
The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argued that it was required to follow those federal standards. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that separate warning requirements cannot be compelled by state laws and courts. The ruling still leaves room for other lawsuits alleging problems with the product's design, and Durnell said he is considering bringing a new case on different grounds.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the maker of Roundup weedkiller Thursday in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.
The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against Bayer, a Germany-based agrochemical manufacturer that acquired Roundup's original producer, Monsanto, in 2018.
The decision is a victory for President Donald Trump's administration, which argued in support of Bayer. But it provoked outrage from allies in the " Make America Healthy Again" movement who want to rein in pesticide use.
The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, held that Roundup cannot be sued in state courts for failure to warn because federal regulators have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label. Though focused on Roundup, the ruling could affect similar health claims against other pesticide products.
"This decision is good for American farmers who help feed the world," Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said. "It provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply."
Though Bayer said the ruling should result in the dismissal of failure-to-warn lawsuits, the company said it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.
The ruling was denounced by environmental groups and lawyers representing people who believe they were harmed by Roundup.
"This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides," said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is a claimant's representative in the settlement. But he said a settlement still would allow some people to receive compensation.
The decision "is a tragic setback for public and environmental health," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a health and environmental group.
A sickened gardener had won $1 million
The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell. He developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood association's "spray guy," using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community.
A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. But Durnell never received the money as his case was appealed. Durnell, 75, said Thursday that his cancer is in remission, and he will be fine without the money.
But "there are thousands of cases that are like mine that will not see court now," Durnell said. "So that is the biggest disappointment for me."
There is still fierce debate about whether Roundup's key ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as "probably carcinogenic" in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it's not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.
The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argued that it was required to follow those federal standards. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that separate warning requirements cannot be compelled by state laws and courts. The ruling still leaves room for other lawsuits alleging problems with the product's design, and Durnell said he is considering bringing a new case on different grounds.
Bayer has pledged billions for settlements
Bayer disputes the cancer claims but previously set aside $16 billion to settle cases, and earlier this year proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement. A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed settlement will be heard in a Missouri state court, where many of the lawsuits have been filed.
At the same time, Bayer has tried to persuade states to pass laws shielding it from liability in failure-to-warn lawsuits. North Dakota was the first to do so, followed by, Georgia and Kentucky.
About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, mostly from home users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market.
The company had said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if it keeps getting sued. Agricultural industry groups have said Roundup is important for a strong food supply.
"Today's decision protects our access to the tools that let us care for our soil, protect our crops, and keep food affordable for your family and mine," said Blake Hurst, a corn and soybean farmer who is a former president of the Missouri Farm Bureau.
At the same time, Bayer has tried to persuade states to pass laws shielding it from liability in failure-to-warn lawsuits. North Dakota was the first to do so, followed by, Georgia and Kentucky.
About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, mostly from home users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market.
The company had said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if it keeps getting sued. Agricultural industry groups have said Roundup is important for a strong food supply.
"Today's decision protects our access to the tools that let us care for our soil, protect our crops, and keep food affordable for your family and mine," said Blake Hurst, a corn and soybean farmer who is a former president of the Missouri Farm Bureau.
The court ruling runs counter
to the MAHA movement
Pesticides have created a rift between the administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's MAHA movement, who were frustrated by an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate's production.
Kennedy has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.
Some health advocates contend the EPA's approval of glyphosate-based weedkillers was based on limited information and that lawsuits in state courts have turned up additional
evidence against it.
"The fact that EPA approved a pesticide label does not mean a product is safe, and it should not become a shield for companies that fail to warn about cancer risks, neurological harm, and other serious dangers," said Patti Goldman, senior attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental legal organization.
–––
Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri.
Court strikes down Hawaii law
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law requiring people to get permission to carry guns into stores and hotels on Thursday, in its latest opinion backing Second Amendment rights.
The high court's 6-3 decision means people can carry guns onto privately owned property like shopping malls and gas stations, unless the owners specifically say guns are banned at their establishments. It comes shortly after the court found that marijuana users can't be completely banned from owning firearms.
It's a win for President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which argued the law violates the Second Amendment. The measure was sometimes referred to as a "vampire rule" because it required people with guns to get permission to enter, according to vampire lore, bloodsuckers need an invitation to enter a home.
Hawaii argued that the 2023 measure ensured private owners could decide whether they wanted firearms on their property. The state passed the law as thousands more people got legal permission to carry guns in the wake of a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that found the Second Amendment gives most people the right to have guns in public.
About four other states have enacted similar laws, though presumptive restrictions for guns on private property open to the public have also been blocked elsewhere.
Hawaii also restricts guns in places like parks, beaches and restaurants that serve alcohol, but those rules weren't before the court. They are being challenged in lower courts, however.
The suit before the Supreme Court was filed by a gun rights group, the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, and three people from Maui. A judge originally blocked the measure, but an appeals court allowed it to be enforced. Trump's Republican administration backed the Supreme Court appeal.
The Second Amendment Foundation applauded the ruling. "This law was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to disarm peaceable citizens, and we're grateful the Supreme Court saw through the ruse," said Alan Gottlieb, its founder and executive vice president.
The Hawaii Department of the Attorney General said they are disappointed, but will "continue to pursue common-sense regulation of firearms, consistent with the Second Amendment, for the safety of our people."
The gun-control group Everytown Law pointed out that business owners can still post signs forbidding firearms on their properties. "The Supreme Court may have changed the default rule, but it cannot take away a private property owner's authority over their own land," said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation.
The two Second Amendment decisions this term are the latest in a series of gun cases that have come before the Supreme Court in the wake of its 2022 ruling, which led to a flood of challenges to firearm restrictions across the country. The justices have since struck down a ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that enable rapid firing, but upheld a federal gun law intended to protect domestic violence victims as well as strict regulations on firearms known as ghost guns, which are nearly impossible to trace.
Kennedy has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.
Some health advocates contend the EPA's approval of glyphosate-based weedkillers was based on limited information and that lawsuits in state courts have turned up additional
evidence against it.
"The fact that EPA approved a pesticide label does not mean a product is safe, and it should not become a shield for companies that fail to warn about cancer risks, neurological harm, and other serious dangers," said Patti Goldman, senior attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental legal organization.
–––
Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri.
Court strikes down Hawaii law
requiring permission to carry
guns in stores and hotels
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law requiring people to get permission to carry guns into stores and hotels on Thursday, in its latest opinion backing Second Amendment rights.
The high court's 6-3 decision means people can carry guns onto privately owned property like shopping malls and gas stations, unless the owners specifically say guns are banned at their establishments. It comes shortly after the court found that marijuana users can't be completely banned from owning firearms.
It's a win for President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which argued the law violates the Second Amendment. The measure was sometimes referred to as a "vampire rule" because it required people with guns to get permission to enter, according to vampire lore, bloodsuckers need an invitation to enter a home.
Hawaii argued that the 2023 measure ensured private owners could decide whether they wanted firearms on their property. The state passed the law as thousands more people got legal permission to carry guns in the wake of a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that found the Second Amendment gives most people the right to have guns in public.
About four other states have enacted similar laws, though presumptive restrictions for guns on private property open to the public have also been blocked elsewhere.
Hawaii also restricts guns in places like parks, beaches and restaurants that serve alcohol, but those rules weren't before the court. They are being challenged in lower courts, however.
The suit before the Supreme Court was filed by a gun rights group, the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, and three people from Maui. A judge originally blocked the measure, but an appeals court allowed it to be enforced. Trump's Republican administration backed the Supreme Court appeal.
The Second Amendment Foundation applauded the ruling. "This law was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to disarm peaceable citizens, and we're grateful the Supreme Court saw through the ruse," said Alan Gottlieb, its founder and executive vice president.
The Hawaii Department of the Attorney General said they are disappointed, but will "continue to pursue common-sense regulation of firearms, consistent with the Second Amendment, for the safety of our people."
The gun-control group Everytown Law pointed out that business owners can still post signs forbidding firearms on their properties. "The Supreme Court may have changed the default rule, but it cannot take away a private property owner's authority over their own land," said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation.
The two Second Amendment decisions this term are the latest in a series of gun cases that have come before the Supreme Court in the wake of its 2022 ruling, which led to a flood of challenges to firearm restrictions across the country. The justices have since struck down a ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that enable rapid firing, but upheld a federal gun law intended to protect domestic violence victims as well as strict regulations on firearms known as ghost guns, which are nearly impossible to trace.
Justices let administration end legal
protections for Haitians and Syrians
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to end legal protections for migrants fleeing violence and natural disaster in Haiti and Syria, exposing hundreds of thousands more people to potential deportation.
The 6-3 decision overturns lower court orders and allows the Department of Homeland Security to swiftly end temporary protected status, a program that protects a total of 1.3 million people from 17 countries.
It marked another victory at the high court for Republican President Donald Trump's sweeping crackdown on immigration. Though the conservative-dominated court has put the brakes on some of Trump's immigration policies, it handed him a second win Thursday in a decision clearing the way for the revival of a policy restricting immigrants seeking asylum.
The court's conservative majority found that immigration authorities have sole authority over the program, and the law doesn't allow judges to intervene.
The majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito also brushed aside arguments that derogatory comments from Trump about Haitians showed the decision was unlawfully tinged by prejudice. He called the statements "insufficient to show that the termination of Haiti's TPS designation was based on the race of the Haitian people."
Justice Elena Kagan forcefully disagreed, calling Trump's comments "so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print." She pointed out that Trump had said Haitians in the U.S. "probably have AIDS," and he also amplified false rumors during the 2024 campaign that Haitian immigrants in Ohio were abducting and eating dogs and cats.
Lawyers said Haitian immigrants would be in serious danger if they are sent back. "Simply put, the Supreme Court's ruling will directly result in thousands of innocent people dying violent, needless deaths," Geoff Pipoly and Andy Tauber said.
They urged the Senate to approve an extension of deportation protections for Haitians that passed the House on a rare bipartisan vote in April.
"Families are here, kids are going to school, parents are going into work, folks are trying to commute, and it's like the Supreme Court just put all those activities on stop and put folks in limbo," said Viles Dorsainvil, who runs a support center for Haitians in Springfield, Ohio.
Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP, called the ruling "a devastating betrayal of Haitian families who have lived, worked, and contributed to this country for years — only to be cast out based on anti-Black immigration sentiment."
Haitians with TPS are also a key part of the workforce in long-term care facilities. "This would be a dreadful loss for all seniors in our community," said Rita Siebenaler, a resident at Goodwin Living, a senior living community in Virginia.
The Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court after judges postponed the end of the program for about 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. The high court sided with the administration before and allowed the end of the program for people from Venezuela.
Federal authorities deny that prejudice played a role. They also cited a Supreme Court decision from Trump's first term that rejected bias claims based on his social media posts and upheld a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.
James Percival, DHS general counsel, applauded Thursday's ruling. He said the program had, in many cases, become "de facto amnesty. This is a win for the rule of law and common sense."
Since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, Homeland Security has ended the protections, including some that had been in place for more than a decade, for people from 13 countries.
The terminations were made even though countries such as Haiti and Syria remain dangerous, immigration lawyers said. Four Haitian women who were deported from the United States in February were later found beheaded and dumped in a river several months later, lawyers said in court documents.
The United States first granted protections to Haitians in 2010 after a catastrophic earthquake and extended them multiple times amid ongoing gang violence that has displaced more than a million people, according to court documents.
Syrians were first granted protected status in 2012, during a civil war that lasted for more than a decade before the fall of President Bashar Assad's government in late 2024.
"Today, many of our community members, they feel lost," Farrah AlKhorfan of Immigrants Act Now said about Syrian immigrants losing TPS protections. "They are trying to understand … what this decision means for them and how it will be implemented and how much time they will have to prepare for what comes next."
The program was created by Congress in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters, civil strife and other instability. It allows people already in the country to stay with work permits in increments of up to 18 months, but it does not provide a path to citizenship.
–––
Associated Press writer Tim Sullivan in Minneapolis contributed to this report.
