>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The Court went even further, spelling out the statute in unmistakable terms.
“Section 1155 is a quintessential grant of discretion: The Secretary ‘may’ revoke a previously approved visa petition ‘at any time’ for what the Secretary deems ‘good and sufficient cause,’” the 9-0 ruling said.
The case, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, involved a U.S. citizen whose husband lost his visa after DHS determined he had previously participated in a sham marriage. That earlier fraud permanently disqualified him from legal residency, even though the later marriage was legitimate.
During oral arguments, several justices focused on the statute limiting judicial review to visa denials only. Their questions revealed skepticism toward allowing courts to interfere with DHS decisions after a visa has already been approved and later revoked.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the immigrant in question still had a legal option. He could reapply for a visa and, if denied, seek judicial review at that stage. The petitioner’s attorney pushed back, arguing that restarting the process creates long delays and severe hardship for families caught in bureaucratic limbo.
Immigration activists quickly sounded the alarm. Advocacy groups warned the ruling could worsen an already overwhelmed system that now faces a backlog exceeding three million cases. The American Civil Liberties Union claimed the decision could limit oversight and allow constitutional abuses to slip through the cracks. Still, even critics conceded there was no evidence of racial bias or misconduct in the Bouarfa case itself.
For supporters of strict border enforcement, the ruling represents a decisive win.
It comes as President Trump prepares to return to office after campaigning on the largest deportation effort in U.S. history. By limiting judicial interference in visa revocations, the Supreme Court has effectively strengthened the executive branch’s hand just as Trump gears up to overhaul immigration enforcement.
That momentum was reinforced earlier this month when a federal appeals court ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement can continue using a Seattle-area airport for deportation flights. The Ninth Circuit tossed out a 2019 local order that attempted to block deportations at King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field, finding that local officials violated federal authority and contractual obligations.
Trump’s incoming “border czar,” Tom Homan, has made it clear he intends to fully enforce federal law, even if Democratic officials stand in the way.
“But look, me and the Denver mayor we agree on one thing. He’s willing to go to jail. I’m willing to put him in jail,” Homan told Fox News host Sean Hannity earlier this month. “There’s a statute, Title 8, United States Code 1324 – AAA. And what it says is it’s a felony if you knowingly harbor and conceal illegal aliens from immigration authorities. It is also a felony to impede a federal law enforcement officer.”
“So if you don’t want to help, that’s fine. He can get the hell out of the way, but we’re going to go do the job. President Trump has a mandate from the American people. We’ve got to secure this country and save American lives,” he added.
With the Supreme Court now reaffirming DHS’s authority, Trump’s immigration agenda appears to have gained a powerful legal tailwind, one that open-borders activists may find increasingly difficult to block.
