Lower court judges are ignoring the Supreme Court and the Constitution to block Trump’s agenda — and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito just called them out.
Across two decisions issued Thursday, both authored by Alito, the justices rebuked federal judges for sidestepping immigration law and the high court’s prior rulings. The cases were Mullin v. Doe and Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, in which the court upheld President Trump’s revocation of Temporary Protected Status for foreign nationals and affirmed that asylum seekers do not “arrive in the United States” when they’re standing on the Mexican side of the border.
Thomas went first — calling out district courts for an “apparent end-run” around federal law.
In his Al Otro Lado concurrence, Thomas highlighted how the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly bars federal courts from issuing injunctions on certain parts of the law except “on an individual basis” — meaning lower courts cannot certify a class of individuals and then issue a blanket injunction covering them.
The challengers in Al Otro Lado sought relief that the statute explicitly prohibits. The district court granted their request to certify a class of “all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process” at the border.
“The District Court acknowledged that our interpretation of §1252(f)(1) in Aleman Gonzalez barred this relief … Nonetheless, the District Court effectively gave Respondents all that they asked for in the form of nominally declaratory relief.”
Thomas added: “In a future case, this Court should address this apparent end-run around §1252(f)(1) and Aleman Gonzalez. I am skeptical that the relief that the District Court ordered complies with §1252(f)(1).”
Thomas further argued that the district court’s relief “may well have unconstitutionally infringed on the President’s inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.”
Justice Thomas: “[A]ny statute that forced the President to allow aliens to cross the border against his will would appear to exceed Congress’s enumerated powers, and a court could not enforce it against the President.” pic.twitter.com/UXj4MujQCG
— Shawn Fleetwood (@ShawnFleetwood) June 25, 2026
Alito’s rebuke was more subtle — but just as pointed.
In Doe, Alito detailed how several Temporary Protected Status designations for foreign countries have continued for decades, while others have not. In a footnote, he noted that Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama all “terminated some TPS designations much more promptly” but that “none of these terminations were challenged in court.”
“Legal challenges to [President Trump’s] decisions, however, began almost immediately,” Alito wrote.
Alito went on to note how the Trump administration previously asked the Supreme Court to pause lower court injunctions blocking Trump from ending TPS for Venezuelan nationals last year. The high court granted those requests on two separate occasions.
“Nevertheless, lower courts, including those in the cases now before us, have continued to block the Secretary’s attempted terminations of other TPS designations.”
2/ That “Nevertheless, lower courts,” sentence has herculean restraint! pic.twitter.com/cJmbWycrL8
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) June 25, 2026
The decisions weren’t the first time justices have rebuked lower courts for refusing to stay in their lane.
Last year, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh blasted lower court judges for disregarding the Supreme Court’s guidance — a recurring pattern throughout the judiciary, according to The Federalist’s previous reporting.
“All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect ‘the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress,'” Gorsuch wrote.
