Chatham Discusses Supreme Court Immigration Rulings on Arizona Horizon

06.29.2026

Stinson LLP Partner Elizabeth Chatham appeared on "Arizona Horizon," a public affairs program on Arizona PBS, to discuss recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings addressing executive authority over immigration policy and their potential impact on individuals in Arizona and across the country.

In the segment, Chatham analyzed decisions allowing the federal government to end certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations and to reinstate a policy affecting asylum processing at the U.S.-Mexico border. She explained that the Court's TPS ruling significantly limits judicial review of the federal government's designation decisions, holding that the TPS statute bars nonconstitutional challenges to designation, extension and termination decisions.

"It's definitely expanded the authority, on the TPS case," Chatham said. "It was decided that the Secretary of Homeland Security will have the authority to make a determination on whether or not TPS designation was appropriate for a country. And that's a pretty powerful position to have."

Addressing concerns raised about individuals from countries such as Haiti and Syria who have lived in the United States for extended periods under TPS, Chatham noted that the program has always included a degree of uncertainty tied to its temporary nature and evolving conditions in home countries.

"The temporary protected status, because of the nature of it, there is always vulnerability," she said. "But there is always analysis, investigation, checking in with other agencies to help the Secretary make the decision of whether a determination should continue or change. And there's usually a bit of a lead up to warn people that might be in that category that there might be a change upcoming."

Chatham also discussed the broader legal implications of the ruling, explaining that it narrows the path for Administrative Procedure Act challenges by barring nonconstitutional challenges to TPS designation decisions under the statute. She noted that while the majority found those claims are not subject to judicial review, the dissent expressed concern that the ruling could leave mandatory statutory procedures with limited judicial enforcement.

Chatham also discussed the Court's ruling on asylum processing at the border, focusing on how the majority's interpretation of the phrase "arriving in the United States" affects when the statutory inspection and asylum application process is triggered.

"The key change with this decision is the [Court's] interpretation of arriving in the U.S.," she said. "The majority took the position that in order to be eligible to be inspected by Customs and Border Protection and to even have that asylum application reviewed or accepted, you have to physically be in the boundary of the United States."

Chatham explained that the decision centers on when the government's inspection and asylum-processing obligations begin at a land border port of entry, rather than who ultimately qualifies for asylum. She noted that operational practices such as "metering," which limits the number of asylum seekers processed during periods of high volume, were central to the Court's analysis.

Chatham assists companies and educational institutions in navigating U.S. immigration law and compliance. She provides tailored corporate immigration and compliance programs and works with clients to obtain temporary and permanent immigration options. Chatham also advises clients on individual consular processing and naturalization.

Watch the full interview.