The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in two consolidated cases, Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Moit, challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from Haiti and Syria. The cases center on whether federal law bars judicial review of the administration’s termination of TPS designations, which grant temporary legal status to individuals from countries deemed unsafe due to conflict or disaster.
Immediate Action & Core Facts
The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine whether the administration can proceed with ending TPS for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 7,000 Syrians. The justices granted "certiorari before judgment," allowing them to review the case before lower courts issued final rulings. A decision could come as early as this summer.
Deeper Dive & Context
Legal Arguments
The Trump administration argues that the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly bars judicial review of the Homeland Security secretary’s decisions on TPS designations. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contends that Congress intended for these determinations to be left to the political process, not federal courts. "The last 12 months illustrate the problems with subverting Congress’s choice," Sauer wrote in court filings.
Opponents of the administration’s move, including lawyers representing the migrants, argue that courts can review whether the government followed the proper procedural steps before terminating TPS. They claim the administration short-circuited the process in both cases, failing to adequately assess conditions in Haiti and Syria before ending protections.
Policy Implications
If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, it could pave the way for ending TPS for migrants from 13 other countries, potentially affecting over 1.3 million people. The administration has already moved to revoke TPS for several countries since January 2020.
Human Impact
Many TPS holders have lived and worked in the U.S. for decades, raising families and contributing to their communities. Attorneys for the migrants argue that returning to Haiti or Syria would be unsafe due to ongoing violence, instability, and natural disasters. Some individuals have already lost jobs and housing after protections were terminated.
Historical Context
TPS was established in 1990 to provide temporary refuge for individuals from countries facing extraordinary conditions. Every president since then, including Republicans and Democrats, has upheld the program—except Trump. His administration has sought to dismantle the program, citing concerns about its temporary nature and the need for stricter immigration enforcement.
Political and Legal Landscape
The Supreme Court has previously sided with the Trump administration in immigration cases, including allowing the end of TPS for Venezuela. However, lower courts have blocked the administration’s efforts to terminate protections for Haiti and Syria, leading to this high-stakes legal battle.
Key Quotes
Ahilan Arulanantham, representing the Syrians, emphasized the rigorous vetting process TPS holders undergo: "They have to go through a vetting process which involves biometrics, background check, running them against all the government’s databases. Two misdemeanors, you’re out."