The Supreme Court is hearing two cases that could let the administration end temporary protected status (TPS) for thousands of people who have lived legally in the United States, many for more than a decade.
TPS is a humanitarian program Congress created in 1990 that allows eligible people to remain and work in the U.S. when conditions in their home countries—such as natural disasters, armed conflict, or other extraordinary circumstances—make return unsafe. Unlike many immigration benefits, TPS requires continuous U.S. residence since the most recent designation, repeated background checks and biometric screening, and periodic renewals; beneficiaries must renew every 18 months. “They have to go through a vetting process which involves biometrics, background check, running them against all the government’s databases,” says Ahilan Arulanantham, who represents the Syrians. “Two misdemeanors, you’re out.”
The current disputes concern TPS extensions for Haitians and Syrians. Haiti received TPS after the catastrophic 2010 earthquake and subsequent instability, cholera outbreaks and gang violence. Syria’s designation covers a smaller group amid ongoing civil war and attacks.
The Trump administration argues that the 1990 statute bars judicial review of TPS decisions, saying the law “covers the waterfront” and places those judgments beyond the courts. Twenty-one Republican attorneys general support that position. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach said some countries have been on TPS lists for more than a decade and that “temporary protective status was never intended to be a de facto amnesty. That status, as its name suggests, is temporary.” President Trump has also been openly critical of TPS recipients’ countries of origin, at one point asking why the U.S. “only take[s] people from shithole countries” and indicating a preference for arrivals from countries like Norway.
Haitian and Syrian lawyers counter that the statute’s judicial-review bar applies only to a specific provision and does not eliminate review of all agency actions. They argue the administration failed to follow procedures required both by the TPS statute and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how agencies make rules and provides a framework for judicial review to guard against arbitrary decision-making.
In the Haitian case, then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated Haiti’s TPS after a Trump executive order, citing two findings: that extraordinary conditions no longer prevented safe return and that continuing TPS would be contrary to the national interest. Noem made similar findings for Syria, citing vetting concerns and pointing to two Syrians under criminal investigation, neither of whom had TPS. Plaintiffs say those explanations are pretextual and that DHS did not conduct the extensive consultation with the State Department the law requires; instead, they say, the State Department issued only a brief, two-sentence statement effectively endorsing DHS’s conclusions.
Haitian plaintiffs also assert a claim of racial animus, pointing to inflammatory remarks by the president, including a false 2024 debate claim about Haitians in Springfield, Ohio. The Supreme Court has often been reluctant to give decisive weight to political rhetoric in such cases, characterizing it as “political.” Lower courts issued preliminary rulings favoring the Haitian and Syrian plaintiffs, but the Court’s conservative majority has frequently shown deference to the executive in immigration matters, especially where national security and public safety are implicated.
At issue before the justices is how much judicial review the law permits and whether the administration complied with statutory and procedural requirements before terminating TPS for these groups. The Court’s decision will determine whether thousands of long-standing TPS recipients can remain in the United States or face removal.