A June 25, 2026 Supreme Court decision has put the future of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program and the legal standing of hundreds of thousands of people in jeopardy. The ruling allowed the Trump administration to proceed with terminating TPS for Haiti and Syria and made clear that decisions to grant or end TPS rest with the homeland security secretary rather than the courts. That shift gives the administration room to end protections for more countries.
How many people are affected? Estimates vary, but the number is in the hundreds of thousands. Some reports cite roughly 270,000 people still holding TPS, while other tallies suggest about 330,000 people—mostly Haitians and a smaller number of Syrians—are immediately affected by the ruling. Earlier in this administration, DHS terminated TPS for 10 countries, affecting more than a million people. Four countries with active TPS designations—Lebanon, El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine—are slated for decisions later this year.
What is TPS? Congress created Temporary Protected Status in 1990 to protect people who cannot safely return to their countries because of war, natural disaster, political instability or other extraordinary conditions. The DHS secretary may designate a country for TPS for an initial 6- to 18-month period; beneficiaries receive protection from deportation and are authorized to work in the U.S. The designation is intended to be temporary and may be renewed or ended by the secretary.
Why the ruling matters The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed that courts cannot overrule the secretary’s judgment about whether conditions in a foreign country warrant TPS. That limits legal avenues for beneficiaries seeking to block terminations. It also means future TPS decisions will depend heavily on DHS policy and the priorities of the current administration.
What the administration says DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has criticized TPS extensions as inconsistent with a temporary program. He has urged TPS recipients either to seek other immigration pathways, such as green cards, or to return to their home countries, saying on CNN that people should “try to fill out the paperwork and be here under permanent status or we’ll help you get back to your home country.” DHS has also argued that many TPS recipients have been in the U.S. for years and should have pursued other forms of status.
Barriers to other pathways There is no straightforward, automatic path from TPS to permanent residency. Asylum claims generally must be filed within a year of arrival, and other routes—like family-based petitions or employer sponsorship—depend on individual circumstances and can be costly, time-consuming and, increasingly, harder to access under current policy. Some people on TPS spent time in the U.S. without lawful status before receiving TPS, which can trigger bars requiring them to leave the country for up to 10 years before applying for a green card.
The administration has also paused or slowed processing of many immigration applications tied to countries on its travel-ban list, including Haiti, Syria, Venezuela and Afghanistan. Although courts have ordered DHS to resume reviewing those paused applications, progress has been slow, limiting immediate alternatives for many TPS holders.
Legal fights and uncertainty The Supreme Court ruling throws other lawsuits over TPS terminations into uncertainty. Over the past year, termination decisions for people from countries including Ethiopia, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua and some Venezuelans have been challenged in federal court; several judges had placed holds on terminations. The Justice Department is appealing some of those rulings. With the Supreme Court signaling limits on judicial intervention, plaintiffs and their lawyers must reassess which challenges can continue.
What advocates and experts say Advocates warn that ending TPS for long-standing beneficiary communities would be unprecedented in modern U.S. immigration history. Todd Schulte of FWD.us noted that many TPS recipients have lived in the U.S. for decades and are deeply integrated, with U.S. citizen family members. Julia Gelatt of the Migration Policy Institute said the number of people with TPS is likely to decline under the current administration and suggested it is possible the program could be left with no beneficiaries by the end of the year.
Jessica Bansal, a lawyer who has litigated several TPS challenges, said the ruling makes it clear TPS for Haiti and Syria will end, though the exact timing of work-authorization expirations and other transitions remains uncertain. For many beneficiaries, it is still unclear when they will no longer be authorized to work or how fast DHS will implement removals.
Practical impacts Employers may be able to sponsor some TPS employees for work visas, but sponsorship is expensive and not available in every case. Where alternative pathways exist, advocates say some beneficiaries fear those processes will expose them to immigration enforcement. For people with long unauthorized residence prior to TPS, seeking permanent status may require leaving the U.S. and waiting abroad for years, a costly and disruptive option.
What to watch next DHS would announce any extensions or terminations for remaining countries in the Federal Register. Legal proceedings relating to other TPS terminations will continue to play out in federal courts; some decisions could be appealed to higher courts. In the near term, beneficiaries, employers and service providers will be watching for official DHS notices, guidance on work authorization, and developments in litigation that might preserve protections for some groups.
Bottom line The Supreme Court ruling reduces the role of courts in blocking TPS terminations and hands more control over the program’s future to DHS. That, combined with recent terminations and administrative policy choices, has created significant uncertainty for hundreds of thousands of people who have relied on TPS for safety and work authorization. Many advocates warn that without legislative action or a policy change at DHS, the TPS program could be effectively curtailed for large segments of its beneficiary population this year.