Supreme Court Ruling Could Close Major Immigration Loophole, Cause Massive Shake-Up

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary has broad authority to revoke visa petitions without judicial review.

In a decision on Bourfa v. Mayorkas, the court unanimously affirmed the secretary’s discretion to cancel approved immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” under 8 United States Code (USC) §1155, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivering the court’s opinion.

The case involved Amina Bourfa, who applied in 2015 to sponsor her husband, Palestinian national Ala’a Hamayel, for legal permanent U.S. residency. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) initially approved the request but revoked it in 2017 after discovering Hamayel had previously paid $5,000 to his ex-wife to facilitate his visa process, the court opinion reads.

The court’s order stated that Congress granted the secretary authority to revoke visa petitions “at any time” and that such decisions are not subject to judicial challenge. (RELATED: ‘Big Win’: Trump-Appointed Judge Temporarily Closes Door To Obamacare For DACA Recipients)

Ending birthright citizenship will be a major step towards stopping illegal immigration. President Trump will make it happen. https://t.co/xaUP3C3dRQ

— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) December 8, 2024

The Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS) reported that an estimated 12.8 million legal permanent residents live in the United States as of January 2024, with over two-thirds entering as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for DHS secretary, Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, has advocated for stricter immigration policies, including then-President Trump’s travel ban on countries with a terroristic history and the proposed end of birthright citizenship.

Tom Homan, the president-elect’s incoming border czar, praised Noem’s selection, calling her a “fast learner” who understands border issues, according to the New York Post.

The Supreme Court argued Bourfa v. Mayorkas in October. Justice Samuel Alito said the “good and sufficient” language “confers the broadest level of discretion that you could imagine” during oral arguments.