The case of Sanchez v. Mayorkas involves Jose Santos Sanchez, a Salvadoran national who entered the United States unlawfully in 1997. After earthquakes devastated El Salvador in 2001, he was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which allows foreign nationals from certain countries experiencing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster or other extraordinary conditions to stay temporarily in the U.S. In 2014, Sanchez applied for an adjustment of status to become a lawful permanent resident but his application was denied by U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services on grounds that he had initially entered the country unlawfully. The Third Circuit Court upheld this decision stating that TPS does not constitute admission into the U.S., hence cannot be used as basis for adjusting status. Sanchez appealed this ruling at the Supreme Court arguing that being granted TPS should count as being "admitted" into the country lawfully and thus eligible for green card consideration under immigration laws. However, in June 2021, Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him affirming that immigrants who have been given temporary protection from deportation are not eligible to apply for permanent residency if they entered illegally.

In the dissenting opinion for Sanchez v. Mayorkas, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's interpretation of immigration law was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not grant lawful status to immigrants but merely allows them to stay in the U.S temporarily due to unsafe conditions in their home countries. Therefore, TPS recipients should not be eligible for green cards as they have never been "inspected and admitted" into the country as required by law. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and previous court decisions regarding similar issues with other forms of temporary relief from deportation like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In his view, these rulings collectively create a confusing legal landscape where some groups are granted benefits while others are denied based on arbitrary distinctions rather than clear statutory language or principles.