Over the past ten weeks, the Supreme Court reshaped both asylum and Temporary Protected Status. The Department of Homeland Security rewrote the rules for green card applicants and international students. And Immigration and Customs Enforcement set a new monthly arrest record for the third month in a row. Some of it is already law. Some of it takes effect in the next two weeks. And some of it is still tied up in court, which means it could change again before you finish reading this. Here’s where things actually stand, section by section.

Asylum Access Is Shrinking on Two Fronts

USCIS announced on July 27 that it will begin referring asylum applications directly to immigration judges without first interviewing the applicant. The announcement came after an interim final rule that took effect immediately. Previously, USCIS asylum officers interviewed applicants who weren’t already in removal proceedings. And if their status required it, referred the case to an immigration judge for an entirely new review, in effect a second chance at asylum. Under the new rule, published in the Federal Register on July 28, USCIS can skip its own interview altogether. It can then refer the case straight to a judge, including for cases that are already pending.

“For far too long the asylum system has been exploited for purposes of delay and work authorization, not legitimate claims of protection,” USCIS Director Joseph Edlow said in the agency’s announcement. DHS General Counsel James Percival added that the change targets “intentional delay by illegal aliens and the open borders attorneys who represent them.” The American Immigration Council, in an August 5 analysis, warned that the rule could speed deportations for asylum seekers who never get a chance to explain their case to an asylum officer before it lands in front of a judge.

The Supreme Court added a second restriction in June. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, decided 6-3 on June 25, the justices ruled that people who present themselves at a U.S.-Mexico border port of entry but haven’t physically stepped onto U.S. soil don’t have a legal right to be inspected or to apply for asylum, according to the American Immigration Council. The ruling clears the way for a practice known as “metering,” in which border officers block asylum seekers from physically crossing into the U.S. at ports of entry to return. In the past, metering has forced people to wait weeks or months in Mexico for a chance to make their case, according to the American Immigration Council.

Green Cards Now Come With a Tougher Public Charge Test

DHS finalized a rule on July 16 rescinding the Biden administration’s 2022 public charge regulation, which had limited which public benefits USCIS officers could weigh when deciding whether an applicant was likely to become dependent on the government. USCIS spokesperson Zach Kahler said the change is meant to protect “American taxpayers from subsidizing aliens who may become dependent on public benefits.”

USCIS followed up with detailed guidance on August 18 explaining how officers will apply the rule once it takes effect on September 18. Under the 2022 rule, officers could only weigh cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutional care paid for by the government. Under the new guidance, officers can weigh nearly any means-tested benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, and financial aid for college, but only for benefits received on or after September 18; benefits received before that date are still judged under the narrower, old standard. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center notes that officers may also consider means-tested benefits received by certain family members of an applicant, even if the applicant never received benefits themselves.

Despite it all, the change isn’t in effect yet, and it isn’t retroactive in the way people fear.

Anyone who files a green card application before September 18 or already has one pending will still be judged under the 2022 rule, according to the ILRC. However, USCIS can factor in benefits received after that date as part of the broader picture. The public charge test also never applies to U.S. citizens, and it doesn’t apply to most green card holders, asylees, refugees, or people with U visas, T visas, or VAWA protection. The ILRC expects legal challenges to the rescission and is tracking updates at ilrc.org/pc-updates.

Similarly, there’s a separate warning for anyone planning to leave the U.S. to finish their green card process at a consulate abroad. The State Department has already issued its own, broader public charge guidance for visa interviews overseas, according to the ILRC, which recommends checking with a trusted legal advocate before departing. A related policy, a blanket pause on visas for applicants from 75 countries based on public charge concerns, was struck down as unlawful by a federal court on August 21 in CLINIC et al. v. Rubio et al.

Temporary Protected Status Is Disappearing, Country by Country

The Supreme Court cleared the way for large-scale TPS terminations on June 25, ruling 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe that a provision of the TPS statute blocks courts from reviewing whether DHS followed the legally required process before ending someone’s status, according to the American Immigration Council. The ruling overturned lower-court orders that had been blocking the termination of TPS for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 4,000 Syrians. Haiti’s TPS designation ended July 27; Burma’s ended August 7.

The decision doesn’t stop there. The same ruling clears the path for the administration to return to court and unwind existing protections for other countries, including the more than 600,000 Venezuelans who had been hoping a favorable ruling would restore their status. Nearly 200,000 Salvadorans, who have held TPS for a quarter century, and roughly 50,000 Ukrainians remain protected for now, but the American Immigration Council says they’re next in line for review. El Salvador’s designation is set to expire September 9, one of the closest dates on the calendar.

DACA Still Exists, But It’s Barely Functioning

DACA is still technically active nationwide, but its status has narrowed significantly since a Fifth Circuit ruling on January 17, 2025, according to the National Immigration Law Center’s litigation timeline. That ruling found the program unlawful but limited its practical effect to Texas, instructing the lower court to sever the program’s two components there. Once implemented, DACA recipients in Texas would keep their protection from deportation but lose their work permits. The case was sent back to U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen to write a new order carrying out that split.

Outside Texas, USCIS continues to accept and process DACA renewal applications. Still, it has not approved new initial DACA applications since 2021, when a separate ruling in the same underlying case blocked new grants nationwide. In April 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that having DACA is not by itself enough to stop an immigration judge from moving forward with deportation proceedings against someone, even though that person still can’t actually be deported while their DACA remains valid, according to NILC’s analysis of the decision.

Birthright Citizenship Survived the Supreme Court. The Fight Continues

On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down the executive order President Trump signed on his first day back in office, which had sought to deny citizenship to children born to undocumented parents or to parents on temporary visas. Five justices joined Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion holding that the Constitution itself guarantees birthright citizenship; a sixth, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the outcome but grounded his vote in 1950s federal legislation rather than the Constitution, according to NPR. Roberts, citing the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and the Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, wrote that “citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights.”

It didn’t stay settled for long. On August 6, Trump signed a new executive order, Executive Order 14418, attempting again to limit birthright citizenship for certain groups of children based on their parents’ immigration status. The ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Asian Law Caucus are already challenging the new order in court.

International Students Lose Their Open-Ended Status

DHS announced on July 16 that it’s eliminating “duration of status,” the system that has let F, J. I visa holders, meaning international students, exchange visitors, and media representatives, remain in the U.S. for as long as their program lasted without a fixed expiration date, a policy in place since 1978. DHS said the old system let people become “forever students” by perpetually re-enrolling in courses to avoid leaving the country. “For decades, foreign students have been admitted into the U.S. indefinitely, allowing thousands to abuse our immigration system by perpetually enrolling in courses to avoid having to leave the U.S.,” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said.

Under the new rule, F and J visa holders get a fixed admission period tied to their specific program, capped at four years. Anyone who needs more time has to apply directly to USCIS for an Extension of Stay, which includes biometric vetting and fraud screening, rather than having it handled through their university’s international student office. The grace period for F-1 students to leave the country, transfer schools, or change status after finishing a program has been reduced from 60 days to 30 days. DHS said the rule takes effect 60 days after formal publication in the Federal Register; several international student offices at universities are now listing that effective date as September 15.

The H-1B Fee Fight Isn’t Settled

A federal appeals court dealt the administration a loss over the summer. The original $100,000 fee, which applied to H-1B petitions for workers outside the U.S., was struck down by a federal district court in June as an unlawful tax that the executive branch had no authority to impose without Congressional Authorization. On July 24, the First Circuit refused to pause that ruling while the government appeals. Hence, the fee remains blocked for now, according to multiple immigration law firms tracking the case, including Fragomen and Littler.

Rather than drop the idea, DHS is drafting a replacement: a roughly $103,000 fee that would apply more broadly than the original, hitting nearly every new H-1B petition, including those for workers already in the United States, not just new arrivals, Bloomberg reported in August.

Enforcement Is Breaking Records Every Month

ICE arrested nearly 50,925 people in August, breaking the record it had just set in July with roughly 50,208 arrests, according to a DHS announcement and multiple news outlets that reviewed the figures. That’s the third consecutive monthly record, with an average of around 1,600 arrests per day. CBS News reported that July’s arrests, which had already pushed the monthly total to nearly 50,000, marked a 70% increase from February and came in the aftermath of two fatal shootings in Minnesota that sparked protests.

States Are Building Their Own Guardrails

While federal policy has moved in one direction, several state legislatures have moved in the other, according to a July 8 roundup from the American Immigration Council. Following California’s 2025 “No Vigilantes Act” and “No Secret Police Act,” which banned face coverings and required ICE agents to visibly display identification while on duty, Washington, Oregon, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, and New York passed similar mask and ID laws in 2026. The Department of Justice has since sued New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, and New York over those laws, and courts have already blocked parts of California’s version.

Other states focused on limiting the extent to which their own agencies cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Maryland’s HB 444 bars state and local police from entering new federal immigration agreements and requires existing ones to be terminated. Virginia and New Mexico passed similar restrictions on so-called 287(g) agreements, which deputize local police to perform federal immigration functions; the Justice Department is now suing both states over the laws.

New York’s version of that law took effect in late August, according to CBS News.

Within the same week, Gov. Kathy Hochul warned county officials that “no county executive should think that they are above the law in the state of New York.” Attorney General Letitia James issued subpoenas to sheriff’s offices in Broome, Steuben, Nassau, and Rensselaer counties, along with the Nassau County Police Department, after they didn’t confirm they’d end their ICE agreements. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman has refused to comply, telling Hochul at a recent appearance with Trump, “Where do you want those illegal immigrants with criminal records to live? You want it back in New York? We say no.” Hochul has said local police will still assist ICE “only if a real crime has been committed.”

Separately, states including Washington, Maryland, and Oregon passed data privacy laws restricting how license plate readers, public records, and data brokers can be used for immigration enforcement, according to the American Immigration Council. Bills that would let individuals sue federal agents for civil rights violations during immigration enforcement passed the California Senate and the Colorado legislature this year; Colorado’s governor vetoed his state’s version, while California’s remains pending in the Assembly.

What Changes in the Next Few Weeks

A few dates to watch. El Salvador’s TPS status is due for a decision around September 9, affecting close to 200,000 people who have held it for 25 years. The new public charge rule takes effect September 18, changing how green card applications are judged from that date forward. The end of “duration of status” for international students is expected around September 15. And the government’s fiscal year closes September 30, which the State Department has warned could push some employment-based green card categories, including EB-1 for applicants from India and EB-2 for all countries, into unavailability before the year is out.

Beyond the calendar, several fights are still working through the courts: legal challenges to the public charge rescission are expected, according to the ILRC; Judge Hanen has yet to issue his revised order in the Texas DACA case; and the new birthright citizenship executive order, along with several states’ mask-ban and cooperation laws, remain the subject of active federal lawsuits. Any of those could shift the picture again before the month is out.

Tags: immigration