Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Weighs Trump Administration’s Push to End TPS for Haiti and Syria
4/30/2026, 12:58:06 AM
The case before the Court
On April 29 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court heard consolidated arguments in *Mullin v. Doe* and *Mullin v. Miot*, challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 350,000 Haitian and 6,100 Syrian nationals. The administration argues that the 1990 TPS statute bars judicial review of a secretary’s decision to designate, extend or terminate a country’s status, while the plaintiffs contend that DHS failed to follow statutory consultation and procedural requirements and acted on racial animus.
Legislative origins and recent history
Congress created TPS in 1990 to grant short-term work authorization and deportation protection to nationals of countries experiencing war, natural disaster, or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.” Haiti received TPS after the 2010 earthquake; Syria was added in 2012 amid civil war. Successive presidents extended both designations for more than a decade. After Donald Trump’s 2025 return to office, his administration moved to end TPS for 13 of the 17 designated countries, including Haiti and Syria, and secured an emergency Supreme Court order allowing the Venezuelan termination to proceed.
Principal actors
- President Donald Trump – advocated ending TPS, famously questioning why the U.S. only accepts “shithole countries.”
- Kristi Noem – former DHS secretary who issued the termination notices.
- D. John Sauer – U.S. Solicitor General defending the “no judicial review” position.
- Kris Kobach – Kansas attorney general supporting the administration.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor – expressed that Congress did not expressly bar review of procedural compliance.
- Judge Ana Reyes (U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C.) – found probable racial animus in the termination.
- Plaintiffs – Haitian and Syrian TPS holders represented by groups such as the International Refugee Assistance Project and the National TPS Alliance.
Scale of the program
- Approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians are covered by the contested terminations.
- The TPS roster totals about 1.3 million individuals from 17 countries.
- 21 Republican attorneys general have filed amicus briefs supporting the administration.
- A recent poll showed 68 % of Latino and 65 % of non-Latino voters favor preserving TPS protections.
Stakes and broader impact
If the Court upholds the terminations, beneficiaries could lose work permits and face removal to nations where the State Department still issues “do not travel” warnings. The loss would affect sectors reliant on TPS workers, such as elder-care and health-care, and could set precedent for future revocations of TPS for other countries.
Government positions (paraphrased)
The Justice Department maintains that the statute’s language expressly precludes any judicial review of a secretary’s TPS decision. DHS officials argue that the terminations reflect improved conditions and serve the national interest. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson reiterated that TPS is “temporary by definition” and not a pathway to permanent residency.
Opposition arguments
Plaintiffs assert that Noem’s decisions were pre-determined, citing a three-sentence email to the State Department as insufficient consultation. They allege the terminations were motivated by anti-Black and anti-Haitian animus, referencing Trump’s 2018 remarks that Haiti was a “shithole country.” Critics also point to the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires transparent rulemaking and agency accountability.
Personal accounts
Haitian nurse Vilbrun Dorsainvil told reporters he would “stay home” out of fear of deportation, while Syrian researcher Dahlia Doe described the prospect of being sent to a country she has never lived in as “a constant state of fear.” Haitian long-time resident Marlene Balthazar warned that losing TPS would render her “homeless” after years of community contributions.
Conflicting evidence
The State Department’s brief email response stated “no foreign policy concerns” with ending TPS, yet its travel advisories continue to warn U.S. citizens of widespread violence, kidnapping and kidnapping in both Haiti and Syria. Courts differ on whether the statutory bar blocks review of procedural compliance.
Verbatim quotes
- “Why is it we only take people from shithole countries? Right? Why can't we have some people from Norway, Sweden. Just a few.” — Donald Trump, campaign rally, 2022
- “Temporary protective status was never intended to be a de facto amnesty.” — Kris Kobach, Kansas Attorney General
- “‘No judicial review’ means no judicial review.” — D. John Sauer, U.S. Solicitor General
- “Congress could have said any termination of TPS status is unreviewable, but it didn’t.” — Justice Sonia Sotomayor
- “Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to non-white immigrants. This seems substantially likely.” — Judge Ana Reyes
Anticipated next steps
The Court is expected to issue its opinion by late June or early July 2026. Meanwhile, the House passed a bipartisan bill to extend Haiti’s TPS for three years, though Senate approval remains uncertain. The decision will shape the future of TPS and influence broader immigration litigation.
