On Thursday, the Supreme Court authorized the Trump administration to terminate humanitarian protections that have allowed hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians to reside and work legally in the United States.
President Trump has sought to end the Temporary Protected Status program as part of his broader immigration crackdown. Established by Congress with bipartisan backing in 1990, the program grants temporary legal relief to individuals from nations facing war, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
The 6‑to‑3 ruling, split along ideological lines, opens the door to possible deportations of roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians, and may affect TPS beneficiaries from about a dozen additional nations.
The government’s capacity to swiftly remove those who previously held protection hinges on whether they already face pending deportation orders. Many TPS recipients lack such orders, giving them a chance to challenge their removal.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, stated that the federal statute bars courts from second‑guessing the administration’s decision to rescind the protections.
He wrote, “This text is clear, and its plain meaning is very broad.”
The Court also dismissed allegations that the administration’s move was motivated by overt racial hostility toward Haitians.
The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan citing extensively from President Trump’s disparaging remarks about Haitian immigrants.
She wrote, “The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race played a role in the president’s decision to expel Haitians from the country.”
Since President Trump returned to office last year, his administration has sought to terminate TPS for nationals of 13 of the 17 countries designated under President Joe Biden. It has also paused refugee resettlement and sharply slowed asylum processing, collectively making it much harder for people from troubled or war‑torn nations to find safety in the United States.
The Secretary of Homeland Security decides when TPS should be available for migrants from a given country, with each designation lasting six to eighteen months and eligible for unlimited extensions.
The statute permits the secretary to periodically review and either terminate or extend protections for specific countries. However, it mandates consultation with relevant federal agencies—including the State Department—on country conditions before any change is made.
The program had been repeatedly renewed, rendering it effectively permanent for beneficiaries from Haiti, Syria and several other nations enduring prolonged crises. Last year, then‑Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem initiated efforts to withdraw the protections from several countries.
Both parties in the case agreed that the law permits the administration to periodically drop countries from the TPS program, and that termination strips beneficiaries of legal protection, requiring them to depart the United States.
Immigrant rights advocates, however, contended that Homeland Security officials neglected to conduct the required country‑condition assessments. Regarding Haitians, they argued the administration’s actions were driven by anti‑Black and anti‑Haitian bias, violating constitutional bans on discriminatory government conduct.
Class‑action lawsuits were launched by TPS holders—among them engineers, students, doctors and caregivers—who wish to remain and work in the United States, asserting that return to Syria or Haiti could expose them to lethal danger.
During April’s oral arguments, the liberal justices questioned the administration’s counsel about whether the decision to end TPS for Haitians was racially motivated, pointing to President Trump’s unfounded 2024 campaign claim that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were eating neighbors’ pets and his December remarks labeling Haitian immigrants as undesirable due to their origin in a “filthy, dirty, disgusting” country.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer countered that those remarks were “unilluminating” and related to poverty and crime, not race. He emphasized that federal law bars courts from second‑guessing the government’s decision to extend or terminate the protections.
The statute’s text forbids “judicial review of any determination” by the secretary concerning the designation, termination, or extension of a designation.
Lower court judges, however, ruled in favor of the Haitians and Syrians, determining that the secretary’s process was open to judicial review and that her decisions appeared preordained lacking substantive analysis. They delayed the terminations, leading the government to petition the Supreme Court for intervention.
The justices expedited the two cases, scheduling them for the final day of the term’s oral arguments.
In a related case last year, the Supreme Court permitted the Trump administration to proceed with lifting protections for over 300,000 Venezuelans residing in the United States, issuing two emergency orders that granted temporary authorization to revoke the status while litigation continued.
Hamed Aleaziz contributed reporting.
