Recent policy news

What happened

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a landmark case challenging an executive order that would end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or in temporary legal status, such as humanitarian parole or H-1B visas. Lower courts have consistently blocked the policy, finding that it likely violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

At the heart of the case is how to interpret the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause. The administration argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States should be read narrowly—applying only to children of citizens or permanent residents. Challengers pointed to long-standing precedent, especially the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, which affirmed that birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship regardless of parents’ status.

Several justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s argument and pressed on how far its interpretation could stretch. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the leap from historically narrow exceptions—like children of diplomats or occupying enemies—to excluding a much broader population of people living in the U.S. without permanent status, suggesting those examples may be too limited and “idiosyncratic” to support such a sweeping change. Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed on the internal consistency of the administration’s test, asking how it would apply to groups like Native Americans and whether it would unsettle established understandings of citizenship. Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on precedent and congressional intent, noting that Congress has repeatedly used the same constitutional language after the Court’s 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision—raising doubts about whether lawmakers ever intended to narrow birthright citizenship in the way the administration now proposes.

At the same time, some justices also challenged the challengers’ position. Justice Samuel Alito suggested that modern illegal immigration presents circumstances that did not exist when the 14th Amendment was adopted, raising questions about how much weight historical practice should carry. Others probed whether the challengers’ reading leaves any meaningful limits on who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and how to interpret that phrase in today’s immigration system.

Why it matters

Birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of U.S. law since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The amendment was originally ratified to guarantee that the formerly enslaved would be recognized as full citizens. It states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

It is foundational to how the United States defines who gets to be American.

A ruling in favor of the administration could fundamentally change who is recognized as American, potentially leaving some U.S.-born children without citizenship and at risk of deportation from the only country they’ve known. A decision is expected by the last week of June.

What happened

In a rare bipartisan move, House lawmakers reached the threshold needed to force a vote on extending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians through January 2029. The vote is expected in the coming weeks, though the measure would still need to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the President.

This comes amid a parallel legal battle: The administration is also seeking to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation early, with oral arguments scheduled in the Supreme Court later this month.

Why it matters

TPS allows people from countries facing crisis to live and work legally in the U.S., but it does not provide a pathway to permanent residency. Roughly 350,000 Haitians currently rely on this protection. Without an extension, they could lose legal status and face deportation to a country still grappling with political instability, violence, and the long-term impacts of natural disasters.

The bipartisan support behind this effort is significant—and reflects growing recognition across party lines of the stakes for Haitian families.

What happened

After imposing a sweeping pause on asylum decisions in late 2025—affecting nearly 4 million pending cases—the administration has begun processing applications again for most countries.

However, the freeze remains in place for applicants from about 40 countries designated as “high risk,” including Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and many countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Why it matters

For many asylum-seekers, this partial restart brings long-awaited progress after months of uncertainty. During the pause, applicants were left in limbo—often unable to work legally, plan for the future, or move forward with their lives.

At the same time, the continued freeze for certain nationalities raises serious equity concerns. Some of the people facing the greatest danger in their home countries remain stuck without answers, underscoring how uneven access to protection has become.

What happened

A federal court in Massachusetts ruled this week that the government unlawfully terminated humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of people who had entered the U.S. legally using the CBP One app. The terminations, carried out via a mass email without individual review, are now reversed, and the government has been ordered to restore parole status.

The ruling applies to a specific group: individuals who scheduled entry through CBP One, were paroled into the U.S. between May 2023 and January 2025, and had their status revoked in April 2025. It does not apply to people who entered through other parole programs like Uniting for Ukraine or the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

Why it matters

For those affected, the decision restores protection from deportation and eligibility to work after months of fear and instability. It also reinforces an important legal principle: The government cannot make sweeping immigration decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of people without individualized review or due process.

Questions remain about how people will be notified and how quickly their status will be restored, making access to legal guidance especially important in the coming weeks.

(Feb. 2026)

What happened

On Feb. 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo stating it intends to arrest refugees who have been in the United States for more than one year and have not yet applied for lawful permanent residence (a green card).

The memo was submitted in federal court as part of ongoing litigation over Operation PARRIS, an enforcement effort in Minneapolis where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained refugees in their communities and transferred them out of state while re-examining their cases. A federal court has paused those arrests while the lawsuit continues.

The new memo suggests DHS may seek to expand that approach nationwide.

What the memo states

Under current law:

• Refugees are admitted to the U.S. after extensive vetting.
• One year after arrival, they are expected to apply for a green card.
• After five years as a green card holder, they may apply for citizenship.

In the memo, DHS asserts that if a refugee has not applied for a green card and completed an interview after one year, the government may:

• Locate and arrest that person,
• Detain them for an unspecified period of time,
• Revisit not only their green card eligibility but also their original refugee claim, and
• Ultimately either grant permanent residence or place them into removal proceedings.

Importantly, the memo does not set a time limit on detention.

It is still unclear how broadly or quickly DHS may attempt to implement this policy, and how courts may ultimately rule on its legality.

Why it matters

Refugees are among the most heavily vetted groups entering the United States. Before arrival, they undergo years of background checks, interviews, biometric screening, and medical exams.

They are admitted lawfully and begin rebuilding their lives with legal protections in place.

Applying for a green card after one year is part of that pathway, but in practice, refugees often face real barriers:

• Limited access to affordable legal assistance
• Language barriers
• Financial hardship
• Medical or mental health challenges
• Confusion about paperwork requirements

If arrest and detention become enforcement tools for those who have not yet applied, the impact could be significant. An estimated 100,000 refugees nationwide may not have adjusted status yet.

Beyond legal questions, there are real human consequences. Refugees, by definition, fled persecution. Being detained, separated from family, or asked to re-prove their past trauma can be destabilizing and retraumatizing.

At this time, much remains uncertain—but preparation and information matter.

If you are a refugee or supporting someone who may be affected

Here are three practical steps you can take now:

1. Connect with legal support. If eligible, refugees should apply for lawful permanent residence. You can search for a qualified immigration attorney using the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) directory.

2. Make an emergency preparedness plan. Use this guide developed by Community Sponsorship Hub, Welcoming Initiative for Newcomers, and Alight to help families prepare important documents and contact plans in case of detention.

3. Offer steady support and connection. Review our guide on helping newcomers cope in unsettling times to provide emotional reassurance and practical care.

What happened: On Feb. 2, a federal judge issued a stay, or postponement, delaying the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians. The ruling prevents the program from expiring as scheduled and keeps current protections in place while a legal challenge moves forward. More than 300,000 Haitian newcomers have sought safety in the U.S. since 2010 after fleeing widespread violence, political instability, natural disasters, and economic collapse. Many now face serious safety risks if forced to return to Haiti.

While the pause is in place, Haitian TPS holders retain work authorization and access to the benefits provided under the program. The court will next consider whether the U.S. government is legally permitted to terminate TPS for Haiti, taking into account ongoing conditions in the country.

Why it matters: TPS for Haiti was first designated more than a decade ago in response to devastating earthquakes and persistent political instability, and it has been repeatedly renewed as conditions remain unsafe. Over the years, Haitian newcomers have built lives in the U.S., raising families, working, and contributing to their communities.

Although the court’s stay offers short-term relief, it underscores how fragile these protections remain. For communities like those in the Texas Panhandle that have welcomed Haitian neighbors, this uncertainty means prolonged instability and the potential loss of friends, coworkers, and community members who have become like family.

What happened: In January, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening), an initiative aimed at reexamining the cases of thousands of refugees who were resettled in the U.S. in the last five years and have not yet received their green cards. These refugees had already undergone extensive vetting and background checks prior to being admitted into the U.S. Beginning in Minnesota, federal immigration agents began detaining lawfully resettled refugees—some of whom were transferred to detention centers in Texas before being released.

In response, a coalition of refugees and advocacy organizations filed a class action lawsuit challenging the arrest and detentions.

On Jan. 28, a federal judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the arrest and detention of lawfully resettled refugees in Minnesota under Operation PARRIS while the lawsuit proceeds. The court also ordered the prompt release of all refugees detained in Minnesota. This ruling applies only to Minnesota and is not a final decision on the case.

Why it matters: Operation PARRIS stems from a directive issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) calling for the re-review of more than 200,000 refugees who arrived during the Biden administration. While enforcement began in Minnesota, DHS has signaled plans to expand the operation elsewhere. The court’s intervention affirms a critical principle: refugees who entered the U.S. through safe, legal pathways and were formally resettled should not be subject to arbitrary detention. While the TRO provides urgent relief for families who were living in fear, refugees and the communities that support them continue to face uncertainty, trauma, and an unpredictable enforcement landscape.

What happened: On Jan. 31, a federal judge in Minnesota denied a request from state and local officials to temporarily halt Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale federal immigration enforcement effort in the Twin Cities, while litigation challenging the operation continues.

State and local leaders argued that the expanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) presence exceeded federal authority, caused fear and disruption in local communities, and lacked a legitimate law enforcement purpose. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet the legal threshold required to pause the operation at this stage.

As a result, the increased ICE presence in the Twin Cities may continue while the broader lawsuit moves forward.

Why it matters: Operation Metro Surge has already had significant impacts on families and neighborhoods. Detentions may continue for individuals who have sought safety in the U.S., including people with pending asylum cases—such as 5-year-old Liam and his father, who were detained despite having active applications.

Even as this enforcement continues, there is growing support from elected officials and community leaders across the country for greater accountability, transparency, and compassion in immigration enforcement, with the latest statement coming from dozens of national security and immigration policy experts who served during Republican administrations. This case highlights the tension between expanded federal authority and the well-being of local communities.

What happened: As part of the administration’s efforts to impose stricter entry requirements, the U.S. Department of State has directed consular officers to indefinitely suspend the issuance of immigrant visas for people from 75 countries deemed “at high risk of public benefits usage.”

This suspension means that individuals from these countries who were seeking to immigrate to the U.S.—often after navigating a lengthy and complex legal process—will not receive visas while the policy remains in effect.

The affected countries include:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.

People who already possess immigrant visas, including those currently outside the U.S., are not affected.

Why it matters: This visa suspension closes safe and legal pathways for families who have already navigated a lengthy and complex immigration process. This includes Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants who risked their lives to serve alongside U.S. forces.

By halting visas, even after approval, the policy leaves families in limbo, separates loved ones indefinitely, and undermines confidence in the fairness and reliability of America’s legal immigration system.