What Recent Supreme Court Immigration Rulings Mean for Global Mobility
On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two immigration decisions with potential implications for employers and workforce global mobility programs.
The more immediate business impact comes from Mullin v. Doe. The Court held that the Temporary Protected Status statute generally prevents courts from reviewing non-constitutional challenges to Department of Homeland Security decisions concerning TPS designations. The ruling reversed orders that had delayed the termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court separately held that a person standing in Mexico has not “arrived in the United States” for purposes of applying for asylum until they cross the border. That decision isn’t as relevant to most employer-sponsored assignments, but it reinforces how quickly federal policy can change the options available to individuals seeking to enter the country.
HR and global mobility teams, should be asking this question: Can an affected employee continue working, travel as planned, or complete a relocation?
What Changed and When
June 25, 2026: The SCOTUS issued both rulings and removed the lower-court orders delaying the Haiti and Syria TPS terminations.
July 27, 2026: The TPS designations for Haiti and Syria terminated.
July 29, 2026: USCIS issued updated employer guidance confirming that TPS-based Employment Authorization Documents in categories A12 and C19 for affected Haitian and Syrian beneficiaries were no longer valid. An individual may, however, possess another valid immigration status or form of employment authorization.
What Does This Mean for Employers?
HR teams should coordinate with qualified immigration counsel and review Form I-9 records to determine whether any employees relied on affected TPS-based work authorization. Reviews should be based on employment documentation and expiration information, not assumptions about an employee’s nationality.
Employers may need to reverify employment authorization, but employees must be permitted to choose which acceptable documents they present. Employers should not demand a particular document or request more documentation than Form I-9 rules require.
Mobility teams should also identify relocations connected to uncertain immigration or work authorization milestones. Depending on counsel’s guidance, an organization may need to adjust an assignment start date, pause temporary housing or household goods services, or consider an alternate location or immigration pathway.
What Role Does an RMC Play?
A relocation management company does not replace immigration counsel. Its role is to translate legal and policy developments into coordinated relocation actions.
An RMC can help flag affected moves, place appropriate services on hold, revise assignment timelines, manage policy exceptions, and coordinate communication among the employee, HR team, immigration provider, and relocation supply chain.
Mobility Risk Assessment Checklist
- Identify active employees and transferees with time-limited work authorization.
- Confirm Form I-9 reverification obligations with immigration counsel.
- Review housing, travel, and shipment commitments before incurring additional costs.
- Create alternative start dates, locations, or assignment structures.
- Establish a rapid-response process involving HR, legal, payroll, and the RMC.
Supreme Court decisions can change the conditions surrounding a relocation quickly. Through its international relocation services, CapRelo helps organizations connect immigration developments with relocation timelines, employee support, and program-level risk management.
Important Note to Readers: This article reflects Supreme Court decisions issued June 25, 2026, and USCIS employer guidance published July 29, 2026. Immigration requirements and related court orders may continue to change, so employers should confirm current obligations with qualified immigration counsel before taking action.
