Alina Habba said that federal employees who don’t support an “America First” agenda may face termination.

The Supreme Court of the United States has unanimously decided that federal courts do not have the authority to review visa revocations issued by the Department of Homeland Security in cases involving fraudulent marriages. The ruling underscores the broad discretion DHS has in immigration matters, particularly when approving or canceling visa petitions.

Writing for the Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that Congress granted the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to revoke visa approvals “at any time” for reasons deemed sufficient. This language indicates that such decisions fall within executive authority, limiting the role of courts in reviewing them.

The case, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, involved a U.S. citizen whose husband’s visa was revoked after DHS determined he had previously engaged in a sham marriage. Although she contested the decision, the Court concluded that discretionary actions like these are not subject to judicial review.

The decision has wider implications for immigration enforcement, especially as Donald Trump continues to influence policy direction. Early in his administration, he appointed Thomas Homan to oversee border enforcement, where Homan became known for his strict approach focused on deportations and tighter immigration controls.

Recent policy changes have expanded the authority of federal immigration officers and increased enforcement efforts aimed at deterring illegal immigration. The Court’s ruling further reinforces DHS’s ability to make visa-related decisions without court intervention, aligning with these broader enforcement strategies.

Critics caution that reducing judicial oversight could increase the risk of power being misused or individual rights being compromised. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that granting DHS greater authority is necessary to maintain the integrity of the immigration system and prevent fraud.

As these developments unfold, the debate over how to balance national security, immigration enforcement, and individual rights continues to be a central issue in public discourse.