The Supreme Court is hearing two cases that could let the Trump administration terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of people from Haiti and Syria — potentially triggering mass deportations of people who have lived legally in the U.S. for years. The cases, argued Wednesday, focus on whether courts can review the administration’s decisions to end TPS and whether those decisions complied with federal law.
TPS was created by Congress in 1990 to protect people who cannot safely return to their home countries because of natural disasters, armed conflict, or other extraordinary conditions. Unlike other immigration benefits, TPS applies only to people who have continuously lived in the United States since their country’s most recent designation. Applicants undergo biometrics and background checks; even relatively minor criminal records can make someone ineligible. Beneficiaries must renew TPS roughly every 18 months and repeat vetting steps.
The Trump administration seeks to end TPS for Haitians — many of whom were first protected after the catastrophic 2010 earthquake and who fled ongoing problems including gang violence, cholera outbreaks, and weak governance — and for roughly 7,000 Syrians who were granted TPS amid civil war and continued bombing. The administration argues the 1990 statute bars judicial review of such agency decisions, contending the law precludes courts from reviewing the determinations about designations and terminations.
Twenty-one Republican state attorneys general have backed the administration, arguing TPS was never intended to become a long-term amnesty and stressing the program’s temporary nature. In the Haitian case, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem terminated Haiti’s TPS citing both an assessment that conditions were no longer extraordinary and a national-interest determination. Noem made similar findings for Syria, citing vetting concerns.
TPS recipients and their lawyers counter that the administration misapplied the judicial-review bar, which they say applies only to a narrow provision, and that the government failed to follow statutory procedures and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argue the APA allows courts to review agency action to prevent arbitrary or capricious decisions. Plaintiffs also say required consultations with the State Department about country conditions were cursory, and that the State Department’s response effectively rubber-stamped the DHS decisions.
Haitian plaintiffs press an additional claim that the terminations were discriminatory, citing inflammatory remarks by President Trump as evidence. The Supreme Court has in the past been reluctant to treat political rhetoric as legally controlling in similar disputes.
Lower courts issued preliminary rulings favoring TPS recipients. The Court’s conservative majority has often deferred to the executive branch in immigration and national-security matters, and justices’ approach to deference and statutory interpretation will likely determine the outcome. The cases will decide whether thousands who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for years may remain or face deportation.