Temporary’s expiration date

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 29th day of June, 2026. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. 

Good morning!  I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. 

Time now for Legal Docket.

Today, four Supreme Court opinions touching immigration, gun rights, and product liability. But beneath those three runs the same question: Who gets to make the rules?

In three of the cases, the Court said judges need to stay in their lane. In the fourth, it reminded government that constitutional rights still set the outer limits.

EICHER: The first case is, Mullin v Al Otro Lado, a 6-3 decision that says the executive branch has the authority to block migrants trying to claim asylum near the border.

The question came down to the ordinary meaning of two words in immigration law: “arrives in.”

This case centers on a policy called “metering.” It’s no longer in place, but when it was, it put a limit on the number of migrants that could be processed at ports of entry each day.

REICHARD: Al Otro Lado is the advocacy group behind the lawsuit. Its co-founder, Nicole Ramos, did not hold back in her criticism of the conservative majority:

RAMOS: So the decision today to deny access to the legal process established by Congress over 40 years ago to many black and brown refugees comes as no surprise, especially when we look at the politics of white nationalism and replacement theory that we’re seeing coming out of some of our elected officials.

Some legal scholars considered those accusations slanderous, legally so. They said the case is a matter of strict statutory interpretation.

Hans von Spakovsky is with Americans Advancing Freedom:

SPAKOVSKY: You notice she doesn’t actually talk about the language, the clear text of the law. The six justices weren’t making a policy decision ... All they were looking at was the question of does the executive branch have the authority to do this under the very specific statute? …So these king of racist claims…that’s just a way of her trying to get around the plain language of the statute.

EICHER: Ilya Shapiro is director of Constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. He says the court relied on everyday analogies to explain what the phrase “arrives in” really means:

SHAPIRO: There are some colorful examples that Justice Alito raised in his majority opinion, you know? A running back does not arrive in the end zone by reaching the one yard line. …A letter does not arrive in your mailbox if the mailman is waylaid by a dog on the way, things like that. So basically the interpretation was someone who is prevented from entering the United States, from literally crossing the border, has not “arrived there” and therefore that right to claim asylum is not triggered.

Shapiro also noted the Obama administration used a similar policy. Although metering is no longer in effect, the Court has now clarified what the statute means should a future administration revive it:

SHAPIRO: You have to be inside the border to claim asylum.

REICHARD: The next opinion is also an immigration matter, Mullin v Doe, another 6-3 decision favoring the executive branch. Again, the Court said judges have only the authority Congress provides.

This was a challenge to President Trump ending so-called TPS for two groups. It’ll affect about 350,000 Haitians and a relative handful of Syrians, around 6,000, who’ve enjoyed temporary protected status for years.

EICHER: Congress created TPS to protect foreign nationals already in the U.S .when natural disaster or war strikes their home countries.

The dispute was whether federal courts may review and block the administration’s decision to terminate TPS based on claims that the process was flawed or else motivated by racial discrimination.

REICHARD: The majority ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act broadly bars courts from reviewing those kinds of decisions.

During oral argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited examples of President Trump’s incendiary language to try to demonstrate that he was motivated by racial animus.

SOTOMAYOR: Now we have a President saying at one point, that Haiti is a “filthy, dirty, and disgusting s-hole country…” I’m quoting him.

EICHER: But Ilya Shapiro says the majority focused elsewhere:

SHAPIRO: It’s been 15 years since the Haiti earthquake… Hassan Bashar Assad has been overthrown. There’s a different government, which we recognize. We have diplomatic relations with the new Syrian government, so whatever is going on in those countries, which may not be perfect, but the emergency that warranted the TPS, the Temporary Protected Status, is over.

The decision establishes that, under the statute, temporary means temporary. That leaves a future policy fight over immigration right where it belongs:

SHAPIRO: If you don’t like the law, seek redress in Congress, not in the courts…

REICHARD: Next, the Court turned from immigration to the Second Amendment—and the limits that government may place on carrying firearms in public.

Here, in Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court considered whether Hawaii could presume that firearms are forbidden on private property open to the public—unless the owner gives express permission.

EICHER: Lawyer Amy Swearer (also with Advancing American Freedom) explains:

SWEARER: It’s a law that flips the presumption about private property. So think about things that are open to the public; gas stations, retail businesses, barber shops, restaurants. All of those places historically had a right to exclude whoever they wanted, including armed customers. They could put up the "no gun" signs and guns wouldn’t be allowed. Well, Hawaii flipped that, and they said you are not allowed to carry anywhere, any of these private businesses or properties that are generally open to the public, unless you expressly get permission first.

By flipping the presumption, Hawaii made carrying a firearm practically impossible unless you’re already a law breaker and don’t follow the laws anyway.

Swearer details the absurdity for the law-abiding:

SWEARER: Because in order to get permission, you actually have to go onto the property and see if there’s a sign that says 'guns allowed' or ask someone for permission. And so essentially what this did was eviscerate the right to bear arms in public.

REICHARD: Hawaii defended the restriction by pointing to local custom, something called “the spirit of Aloha.” 

Again, Swearer:

SWEARER:  The Second Amendment applies equally throughout the United States. It doesn’t give way to the spirit of Aloha, any more than it does to the Windy City or the Big Apple. And this is important; in some earlier cases, the Supreme Court of Hawaii had quite literally stated, "Well, okay, the Second Amendment exists, but we’re going to interpret it according to the spirit of Aloha, which in this case means we don’t like guns. The spirit of Aloha is not compatible with lawful civilian gun ownership." 

Justice Kagan wrote a separate dissent from Sotomayor and Jackson. I asked about that:

SWEARER: Justice Jackson’s dissent that Justice Sotomayor joined, then start with a very specific argument which was that, “Well, this wasn’t a Second Amendment case at all,” and so that is the part that I think Justice Kagan really wanted to distance herself from there. And I think that’s a good thing for her to distance herself from….it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that a law that explicitly regulates the ability of a person to bear arms in public is somehow just a private property law that has no reference at all to the Second Amendment.

Swearer told me, though, that law-abiding gun owners in the state still face a long list of places where carry is restricted, so future litigation is practically certain.

EICHER: And finally, a case far removed from immigration or gun rights—but one with enormous consequences for business and federal regulation. 

Monsanto v Durnell is a win for the agricultural biotech company Monsanto and its weed-killer product called Roundup. This affects thousands of ongoing claims against the company over Roundup. A man who developed cancer had argued that the product should have carried an additional warning label.

Von Spakovsky explains the ruling:

SPAKOVSKY: …federal law preempts state laws. The feds have said they are going to regulate pesticides, they are the ones who say what has to be on the label, and you can’t get around that by using state tort laws to try to go after the manufacturer, particularly because, you know, this guy’s complaint was that, "well, they didn’t put a warning on the label that Roundup causes cancer." The federal government didn’t allow them to put this label on it!

REICHARD: Shapiro says this is the biggest business case of the term:

SHAPIRO: Monsanto…has been fighting litigation over allegedly its products causing cancer in various ways. And the thing is… nobody is making the claim that Monsanto is violating federal law in any way. They’re complying with EPA regulations, they’re complying with labeling rules, everything that is demanded of them federally.

This one was 7-2, and the two in dissent aren’t who you might expect:

SHAPIRO: Interestingly, the two dissenters were Gorsuch and Jackson, sort of on opposite ends of the court. An interesting argument about whether there was any leeway for additional labeling, or whether the federal law at issue left any wiggle room for additional labeling. But nonetheless Monsanto has won, and so it’s, you know, over a decade long litigation has concluded.

The ruling weakens thousands of pending Roundup lawsuits, at least those built on failure-to-warn claims. But settlements that’ve already been paid? Those stay in place.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.