In a decisive 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has empowered the Trump administration to discontinue temporary legal protections for numerous Haitian and Syrian nationals, establishing that federal judges lack the jurisdiction to address the majority of the challengers’ claims.
This decision marks a significant triumph for President Trump’s stringent immigration agenda. The administration has been working to remove more than a dozen countries from Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a program that provides eligible citizens from designated nations protection from deportation alongside opportunities for work authorization.
The ruling sends a worrying signal to TPS recipients from various other countries who have initiated legal battles to maintain their statuses. In lower courts, judges have frequently preserved TPS amidst assertions that the Trump administration’s hasty actions were influenced by racial prejudice.
“The TPS statute unequivocally prohibits the consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims,” stated Justice Samuel Alito, delivering the majority opinion.
Regarding remaining claims, Alito indicated their unlikely prospect of success, including accusations that the termination efforts are racially motivated. He contended that the plaintiffs aimed “to capitalize on … heated language” from both President Trump and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
“Whatever one may think of the cited statements, they are insufficient to show that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was based on the race of the Haitian people,” he wrote.
The three liberal justices dissented.
“In fact the statute allows judicial review of whether the Secretary adhered to the procedures it mandates—which is what the plaintiffs dispute here,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote, noting the established process for rescinding a TPS declaration.
“Second, the majority claims to see no evidence that race played any role in the Haiti decision. But the evidence is there, plain to see, in the President’s statements, which the majority (and for that matter, his own lawyers) cannot even bear to repeat.”
Created in 1990, TPS temporarily protects foreign nationals who cannot safely return to their home countries because of armed conflict, natural disaster or other extraordinary conditions. It prevents deportation and provides recipients with a pathway to work authorization.
Trump has taken aim at the program in his second term as part of his broader immigration crackdown. His Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accused the Biden administration of abusing the program, arguing the temporary protections need to be temporary.
The Trump administration so far has looked to terminate TPS for 13 of the 17 designated countries when the president retook office, arguing the countries no longer meet the criteria. The others are set to expire soon.
Viles Dorsainvil, a Haitian TPS holder and one of the plaintiffs in the case, lamented the ruling.
“This decision places thousands of Haitian families in immediate fear. Haiti is not safe, and everyone knows it. The Court’s ruling does not change the reality on the ground or the contributions we make here in the United States,” he said in a statement.
Dahlia Doe, a Syrian TPS holder and another lead plaintiff, said the ruling leaves her in limbo.
“Today’s decision is a devastating blow to me and thousands of TPS holders and our families who built our lives in this country in good faith. We are real people whose futures now hang in the balance. This is not simply a legal outcome, for us it is the loss of stability, the fear of separation from our families, and the uncertainty of what comes next,” she wrote.
DHS has argued that federal judges have no authority to second-guess the administration’s judgment and that lower courts have improperly stymied the plans.
Lower courts have been particularly harsh in their rebukes of the Trump administration’s plans to end TPS.
When Noem sought to lift TPS for both Haiti and Venezuela, a concurring opinion at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals noted that both Noem and Trump repeatedly made statements that “were overtly founded on racist stereotyping based on country of origin.”
Both endowing and rescinding TPS require a declaration from the secretary of Homeland Security that evaluates country conditions and whether the U.S. can safely deport nationals there.
Haitians were first offered TPS in 2012 after a devastating earthquake, but the program was continually renewed in the wake of the assassination of Haiti’s leader. The country remains in a transitional government and is largely controlled by gangs.
Syria also remains in chaos following a civil war that forced the ouster of its leader, with various factions feuding across the country.
Kagan wrote that while courts can’t second guess Noem’s determination, they can review whether she followed the law in undertaking the review and consultation process to do so.
“Suppose the Secretary determines that a country no longer qualifies for a TPS designation even though the record shows the opposite—that country conditions are as dire as ever. Under the statute, no court may second-guess that determination. But still, the review bar has limits,” she wrote.
“It does nothing to stop courts from reviewing things other than the Secretary’s ‘determination[s]’ concerning TPS designations. And those other things include the procedural steps the Secretary must undertake prior to making any determination about country conditions.”
Immigrant advocates on Thursday blasted the Trump administration for steps that will unwind the legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants.
Lupe Aguirre, deputy director of U.S. litigation at the International Refugee Assistance Project, which represented Syrian plaintiffs in the case, said the ruling greenlights “what could be the largest de-documentation effort in history.”
“The Supreme Court has given the Trump administration a dangerous carte blanche to ignore Congress, undermine the rule of law, and detain and deport our neighbors. The imminent loss of TPS is a recipe for chaos, cruelty, and yet another blow to our democracy,” she said in a statement.
Emi MacLean, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which also represented plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling a “stain” on the court that ignored the role played by race.
“In an unconscionable decision, the Supreme Court has ignored the clear evidence that the Trump administration’s actions were arbitrary and racist,” she wrote in a statement.
“The decision threatens to strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of people, greenlight deportation to countries in crisis, and take away the right to work from valued members of our communities. Today’s decision is a stain on this court and this country.”
Updated at 11:53 a.m. EDT