Supreme Court backs TPS cuts for nearly 400,000

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with terminating Temporary Protected Status for nearly 400,000 people, including at least 363,000 Haitians and about 7,000 Syrians living in the United States—an outcome advoca

By the time the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, the question facing hundreds of thousands of people living on Temporary Protected Status had sharpened into something far more immediate: whether they could keep their footing in the United States at all.

The court approved the Trump administration’s plan to strip nearly 400. 000 people of TPS. clearing the way for the termination to proceed after years of litigation. The justices’ decision came in two related cases—Mullin v. Dahlia Doe and Trump v. Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot—argued in April and focused on whether former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem followed the law when terminating TPS protections for Syria and Haiti.

TPS was created by Congress in 1990. designed to offer relief to people who can’t stay in their home countries because of armed conflict. natural disaster. or other extraordinary and temporary conditions. Under the statute. the homeland security secretary is responsible for assessing whether a country can be removed from the TPS list. but that decision must be made in consultation with other government agencies.

Doe and Miot argued Noem failed to follow that required protocol when terminating TPS for Haiti and Syria. They said the administration instead dropped the protections solely because of a long-running racial animus toward nonwhite immigrants espoused by President Donald Trump.

In its 6-3 decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the majority declared that Noem’s decision was not subject to review by the courts. The majority also held that Doe and Miot could not prove racial bias and were not entitled to interim protections.

Alito wrote that even assuming heightened scrutiny applied. the court still had to determine whether a “discriminatory purpose [was] a motivating factor in the decision” to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation. He said that standard requires attention to context—including the immigration setting—and that the statements cited by the president or the secretary were not overtly racial and. “in substance. ” expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.

“… whatever one may think of the cited statements, they are insufficient to show that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was based on the race of the Haitian people,” Alito wrote.

Outside the courtroom, the stakes were already quantified. There are 1.3 million TPS holders living in the United States. At least 363,000 Haitian TPS-holders and 7,000 Syrian TPS-holders live in the U.S. Last October. the high court agreed to terminate status for Venezuela. a move that wrested protections away from at least 300. 000 Venezuelans living in the country.

The ruling landed amid a broader political backdrop that advocates say makes the court’s reasoning feel detached from reality. Trump has repeatedly denigrated immigrants. From the campaign trail in 2023. he said immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” In 2024. he cast racist aspersions at Haitians while campaigning. falsely claiming Haitians were eating people’s pets. In December, Noem referred to immigrants entering the U.S. as “killers, leeches and entitlement junkies,” and Trump has referred to Haiti as a “shithole.”.

But the majority said those characterizations were not “overtly racial.” Alito said someone could oppose TPS for economic or other reasons unrelated to race. and that a person without racial bias can still make harsh statements about living conditions in TPS-designated countries. He pointed to the criteria for TPS designations. writing that they guarantee many. if not most. designated countries have such characteristics.

Alito added that “many Americans of all races” would find the poverty and conditions in Haiti “unquestionably difficult. ” and he said poverty and deprivation are “no reflection on character” and “there is no justification for denigrating the character of Haitians who suffer from and bear no responsibility for their country’s ills.” He acknowledged that more than 500 Haitians fought to “support American independence at the Battle of Savannah in 1779. ” and that they have “made many positive contributions to the U.S. from the very beginning and they continue to do so today.”.

Even with that acknowledgement, the legal outcome puts people in a position where the ability to stay in the U.S. could hinge on timing and enforcement.

Clarence Thomas concurred with the opinion. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Kagan took direct aim at the majority’s insistence that there was no racial animus guiding Noem’s decision-making. “The majority claims to see no evidence that race played any role in the Haiti decision. But the evidence is there. plain to see. in the President’s statements. which the majority (and for that matter. his own lawyers) cannot even bear to repeat. ” Kagan wrote.

Kagan also argued that the majority’s view that court review is barred would insulate critical issues from scrutiny. She described a hypothetical where the secretary claims conditions no longer qualify for TPS even if the record shows the opposite. Under that view, Kagan said, “no court may second-guess” the secretary’s determination about TPS country conditions. But she argued courts can still review “things other than the Secretary’s ‘determination[s]’ concerning TPS designations. ” including the procedural steps the secretary must take before making any country-condition determination.

Alito called Kagan’s hypothetical “far-fetched.”

The ruling has also triggered immediate political and legal pushback, with advocates arguing the decision hands the administration a broad, unchecked ability to undo TPS protections.

Lupe Aguirre, deputy director of U.S. litigation at the International Refugee Assistance Project, warned that the decision gives the administration what he called “carte blanche” to ignore Congress, undermine the rule of law, and “detain and deport our neighbors.”

“The imminent loss of TPS is a recipe for chaos, cruelty, and yet another blow to our democracy. In what could be the largest de-documentation effort in history. hundreds of thousands of healthcare workers. students. and other valued community members will be robbed of their TPS status and their ability to live and work legally in the United States. ” Aguirre said.

He added, “While the Supreme Court failed to uphold the separation of powers at the center of our Constitution, it is not too late for Congress to act. If it doesn’t, everyone will suffer the consequences.”

The court’s majority, meanwhile, found the termination decision “totally unreviewable,” even though federal code for the TPS statute says the Department of Homeland Security can end protections for a country only after consultation with other government agencies.

In the days since the decision, the human cost has been increasingly difficult to separate from the legal doctrine. In May. HuffPost interviewed Dahlia Doe. the lead plaintiff challenging the Trump administration’s push to strip her of her status. Doe said the possibility of being forced to go to Syria—and leave the only life she has ever known in the U.S.—terrified her.

“To even consider the option of going to a country that I don’t know, to a country where I have nobody and to a country that, frankly, is not in a position to support me as a newcomer because they are rebuilding … I can’t even imagine being forced to go there,” Doe said.

Doe is the primary caregiver for her elderly father, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease.

Once TPS is removed, the process typically starts with a 60-day countdown from TPS holders to leave the United States. The International Refugee Assistance Project said the decision is scheduled to take effect in 32 days unless there are further district court orders.

When losing TPS status, a person can appeal their removal or attempt to get a green card, but once removal proceedings are officially started, there is no green card option. The clock matters—and advocates say the court’s ruling effectively moves the system faster than many people can prepare for.

State officials in Ohio have also been pulled into the fallout. After the ruling, Ohio Immigrant Alliance Executive Director Lynn Tramonte called out Republican state officials, including Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, and U.S. Sens. Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted. The Ohio Capital Journal reported at least 30,000 Haitians with temporary protected status live in Ohio.

“The only thing to do right now is figure out Plan B,” Tramonte said in a statement. “You cannot let Haitian-Ohioans be deported to a country where they will be killed. They are our family members, co-workers, friends, and neighbors. They are our people now. You cannot sit back and let this happen. You have power. Use it to be leaders now.”.

Federal agencies, however, have defended the removal of Haiti from the TPS list by pointing to improved conditions. Even so. the State Department still lists Haiti as a “Level 4: Do Not Travel” zone for Americans “due to kidnapping. crime terrorist activity. civil unrest and limited health care.” Syria carries a similar advisory.

The Supreme Court’s decision Thursday did not change those advisories. But it did change the legal runway for people who have lived in the United States for years under the protections Congress created in 1990—leaving hundreds of thousands. including Haitian and Syrian TPS holders. facing a future that many describe as precarious at best and life-or-death at worst.

Supreme Court Temporary Protected Status TPS Trump administration Kristi Noem Haiti TPS Syria TPS Mullin v. Dahlia Doe Trump v. Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot immigration enforcement Ohio Immigrant Alliance Mike DeWine