US Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to End Removal Protections

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision in *Mullin v. Doe*, cleared the way for the federal government to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Haitian and Syrian nationals. The Court held that the federal law establishing the TPS program, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A), broadly bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims challenging the Secretary of Homeland Security's determinations regarding TPS designations, terminations, or extensions. Furthermore, the Court found that the constitutional equal protection claim brought by Haitian TPS holders, alleging racial animus in the termination decision, was unlikely to succeed on the merits. This ruling reverses lower court injunctions that had temporarily blocked the terminations, significantly limiting avenues for legal challenges to future TPS decisions and impacting approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.

The United States Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark decision in *Mullin v. Doe*, consolidated with *Trump v. Miot*, profoundly reshaping the landscape of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and the scope of judicial review over executive immigration decisions. On June 25, 2026, the Court, in a 6-3 ruling, effectively dismantled lower court injunctions that had for years prevented the termination of TPS for nationals of Haiti and Syria. This decision has immediate and far-reaching implications for hundreds of thousands of individuals who have relied on TPS for their legal presence and work authorization in the U.S., as well as for the broader principles of administrative law and judicial deference to executive branch actions in immigration matters.

The core of the Court's ruling centered on two critical legal questions: first, the extent to which federal courts can review the Secretary of Homeland Security's decisions to designate or terminate TPS, and second, the viability of constitutional claims alleging discriminatory intent behind such terminations. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, adopted a broad interpretation of the statutory bar on judicial review, significantly narrowing the ability of courts to scrutinize TPS decisions. This article will delve into the statutory and doctrinal background of TPS, analyze the Supreme Court's reasoning in *Mullin v. Doe*, and explore the practical implications for legal practitioners and affected communities.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a humanitarian immigration program established by Congress through the Immigration Act of 1990, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1254a. It grants temporary relief from deportation and work authorization to foreign nationals already present in the United States whose home countries are experiencing conditions that make safe return difficult or impossible. These conditions typically include ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary and temporary circumstances. The Secretary of Homeland Security (formerly the Attorney General) is responsible for designating a country for TPS, extending or re-designating it, and ultimately terminating the status when conditions are deemed to have improved.

Haiti was initially designated for TPS in January 2010 following a devastating earthquake that crippled the nation, leading to widespread destruction and loss of life. This designation was extended multiple times over the years due to persistent challenges in the country. Similarly, Syria received its TPS designation in March 2012 in response to the escalating civil war and severe humanitarian crisis. In both instances, the Trump administration announced its intent to terminate these TPS designations, arguing that the original conditions justifying the status no longer existed. These termination decisions were met with legal challenges, leading to injunctions from federal district courts in Washington, D.C., and New York, which had temporarily prevented the terminations from taking effect. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment in these consolidated cases to review the lower courts' decisions.

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in *Mullin v. Doe* primarily hinged on the interpretation of the judicial review provision within the TPS statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A). Justice Alito, writing for the majority, emphasized that the statutory language, stating there is “no judicial review of any determination… with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state,” is “clear, and its plain meaning is very broad.” The Court concluded that this provision bars all non-constitutional claims, whether they challenge the substantive decision to terminate TPS or the procedural steps leading to that decision. This expansive interpretation means that courts generally cannot review whether the Secretary of Homeland Security properly assessed country conditions or followed required consultation procedures when making TPS determinations.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, sharply criticized the majority's interpretation. She argued that the majority's reading effectively renders the Secretary's compliance with statutory requirements unreviewable, undermining the checks and balances inherent in the American system of government. The dissent contended that the statute should permit judicial review of claims alleging that the Secretary failed to consult with appropriate government agencies about country conditions, as mandated by the statute. However, the majority's ruling definitively forecloses such statutory and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges to TPS decisions, establishing a high bar for any future non-constitutional litigation.

Beyond the judicial review question, the Court also addressed the equal protection claim brought by Haitian TPS holders, who alleged that the termination of Haiti's TPS designation was motivated by racial animus. While the Court did not adopt the government's argument for a highly deferential standard, it ultimately concluded that the Haitian respondents were “unlikely to prove that race was a motivating factor” and thus not entitled to interim relief. The majority pointed to the Trump administration's broader policy of opposing lengthy TPS designations across various countries as a strong, race-neutral explanation for the termination. Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion, went further, arguing that the equal protection claim was beyond the District Court's jurisdiction and that aliens generally have no equal protection rights against the federal government.

This decision represents a significant victory for executive authority in immigration matters and a substantial blow to judicial oversight of such decisions. It reinforces the principle of judicial deference to the political branches on issues of foreign policy and national security, even when those decisions have profound impacts on individuals' lives. The ruling is expected to accelerate the termination of TPS designations for other countries currently under litigation, as the legal pathway for challenging these decisions has been severely curtailed.

The Supreme Court's decision in *Mullin v. Doe* has immediate and critical implications for the approximately 350,000 Haitian and 6,000 Syrian nationals who have relied on TPS for their ability to live and work in the United States. With the lower court injunctions lifted, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is now free to proceed with the termination of these designations, leading to the expiration of their work authorizations and protection from removal. Legal practitioners must urgently advise affected clients on the impending changes, including the need to explore alternative immigration pathways, if available, and to prepare for the loss of TPS-based benefits.

For employers, the ruling necessitates a proactive approach to workforce management and I-9 compliance. Employers with Haitian and Syrian TPS beneficiaries in their workforce must monitor official guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regarding specific termination dates and re-verification requirements. The decision signals a future where TPS terminations will likely proceed without the buffer of prolonged litigation, requiring employers and individuals to adapt quickly to policy changes. This ruling also sets a precedent that could impact TPS holders from other countries, as it significantly limits the scope for judicial intervention in similar termination decisions. Legal professionals should remain vigilant for further agency announcements and be prepared to guide clients through an increasingly complex and less judicially reviewable immigration landscape.