Class Action Alert: Certain beneficiaries and sponsors of CHNV, U4U, OAW, CAM, FRP, or MPIP humanitarian parole are protected as class members in our Svitlana Doe v. Noem lawsuit. Learn more and sign up for class member updates on our class action page.
Every Supreme Court ruling produces two outcomes: a legal one and a narrative one. The primary legal outcome is clear the day the Court releases its opinion. But the narrative result is shaped in the months before and after a decision, through the stories we tell each other about what happened and what it means. Through a narrative analysis, we give advocates, litigators, and funders a clearer understanding of the existing narrative landscape as we move through the 2026–27 Supreme Court term, and a starting point for shifting it.
How We Win: Court of Public Opinion
Every Supreme Court ruling produces two outcomes: a legal one and a narrative one.
The primary legal outcome is clear the day the Court releases its opinion. The narrative result, however, is shaped in weeks and months before and after a decision, in the stories people tell each other about what happened and what it means.
The fight for immigrant justice isn’t just happening in the courts. It’s happening in the court of public opinion, too.
That’s why we created this report. To give advocates, litigators, and funders a clearer understanding of the existing narrative landscape as we move through the 2026–27 Supreme Court term, and a starting point for shifting it.
Download the report! ⬇
From the report:
Justice Action Center and Narrative Initiative studied how narratives took shape across social media and traditional news around three Supreme Court (SCOTUS) immigration cases decided at the end of the 2025-26 term: the temporary protected status (TPS) case; the asylum metering case; and the birthright citizenship case.
One of the clearest findings of this analysis is that Supreme Court decisions don’t enter the public conversation on their own terms. They are interpreted, amplified, and absorbed into larger stories about immigration, belonging, and the government’s power over people’s lives. Across all three cases, we saw how the far right used individual rulings to reinforce narratives that extend well beyond any single legal dispute.
That has significant implications for how advocates approach litigation communications. A strategy built around responding to individual cases will struggle to compete with one designed to shape the larger story connecting them.
Every Supreme Court ruling produces two outcomes: a legal one and a narrative one.
The primary legal outcome is clear the day the Court releases its opinion. But the narrative result takes shape in the months before and after a decision, through the stories people tell each other about what happened and what it means.
Justice Action Center and Narrative Initiative studied how narratives took shape across social media and traditional news around three Supreme Court (SCOTUS) immigration cases decided at the end of the 2025-26 term: the temporary protected status (TPS) case; the asylum metering case; and the birthright citizenship case.
The throughline: The fight for immigrant justice isn’t just happening in the courts. It’s happening in the court of public opinion, too.
That’s why we created this report. To give advocates, litigators, and funders a clearer understanding of the existing narrative landscape as we move through the 2026–27 Supreme Court term, and a starting point for shifting it.
