It’s a tough day for the open-borders lobby and the administrative state. For years, activist immigration lawyers and progressive bureaucrats have treated federal law like a choose-your-own-adventure novel, trying to find every possible loophole to hand out green cards like candy. But the Supreme Court just dropped a massive reality check, reminding everyone that words actually have meanings. Through a series of recent rulings, the Court has systematically dismantled the legal gymnastics used to bypass our immigration laws, leaving activists absolutely coping and seething.

Let’s start with Sánchez v. Mayorkas (2021), a beautiful 9-0 shutout that left the progressive narrative in tatters. The case was simple: Jose Santos Sanchez sneaked into the country illegally back in 1997, later got Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and then claimed that this "temporary" humanitarian shield magically washed away his illegal entry, giving him a golden ticket to adjustment of status. The activists honestly thought they had a slam dunk, arguing that "lawful status" equals "lawful admission."

Enter Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the unanimous opinion that completely demolished this fantasy. Kagan pointed out the glaringly obvious: you cannot be "admitted" to the country if you crossed the border illegally in the dark of night. TPS gives you a temporary pass to stay and work, but it doesn't give you a time machine to rewrite history. The fact that even the liberal justices signed onto this opinion shows just how absurd the plaintiffs' arguments really were. Lawful entry means lawful entry—period.

But the real peak-salt event was the 5-4 decision in Patel v. Garland (2022). Here, we had Pankajkumar Patel, who checked the "I am a U.S. citizen" box on a Georgia driver's license application. When the immigration authorities caught him, he tried the classic "oops, it was just a clerical mistake" defense. The immigration judge didn't buy the story, found him not credible, and denied his application for discretionary relief from deportation. Patel then tried to run to the federal courts, hoping some activist judge would bail him out.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, shut that down real quick. The Court ruled that under federal law, federal courts have zero jurisdiction to review factual findings made during discretionary relief proceedings. If the immigration court says you’re lying about your citizenship, you don't get an infinite number of appeal buttons in federal court. Of course, Justice Gorsuch and the liberals lost their minds in the dissent, claiming this would lead to some bureaucratic dystopia. In reality, it just means that if you lie on official documents, you have to face the music.

These rulings are a massive win for anyone who still believes in national sovereignty and the separation of powers. For decades, the executive branch has been trying to run an end-run around Congress by using administrative tricks to grant de facto amnesty. By enforcing the actual text of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Supreme Court has reined in this executive overreach and told the bureaucrats to stay in their lane. If you want to change the immigration rules, go win an election and pass a law.

Predictably, the mainstream media is running endless sob stories about how these rulings are "cruel" and leave people "protected no more." But they never want to talk about the slap in the face to millions of legal immigrants who actually respected our laws, paid thousands of dollars in fees, and waited years in line to do things the right way. Rewarding illegal entry and administrative dishonesty only makes a mockery of the entire legal system.

The era of using the courts to bypass the law is officially coming to an end. The Supreme Court has made it clear that they are going to read the statutes exactly as they are written, no matter how many sob stories the media prints. It’s called the rule of law, and it’s about time we brought it back.

Sources: Supreme Court of the United States, Sánchez v. Mayorkas*, 593 U.S. 434 (2021) Supreme Court of the United States, Patel v. Garland*, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) * Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (Adjustment of Status) * Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (Judicial Review of Orders of Removal)