Supreme Court Weighs Trump's Move to End Temporary Protected Status

The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments on Wednesday regarding Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants from Haiti and Syria, with legal scholars saying the case could have broader negative repercussions on U.S. legal precedent as well as millions of individuals from 17 total countries.

Immigrants and advocates alike are concerned that if the long-enacted program folds, it would impact not just roughly 350,000 immigrants from Haiti and Syria but could impact approximately 1.3 million people from the overall 17 countries that have lived, worked in the United States under TPS including the following: Afghanistan, Burma, Cameroon, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen.

The Trump administration’s efforts to dramatically downsize the program started in 1990 by Congress began last year, with the Court issuing two orders to strip some 350,000 Venezuelans of protected status. TPS, which came under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authority in 2002 and away from the attorney general, offers refuge to migrants to live and work legally in the U.S. and away from native countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters or other crises.

The two cases being heard April 29 are Mullin v. Dahlia Doe and Trump v. Miot, the former regarding Haitian nationals and the latter Syrian nationals.

“President [Donald] Trump campaigned on ending TPS and has now terminated every designation that's come up for renewal, regardless of the actual conditions,” Megan Hauptman, a litigation staff attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project, told Military.com. “[He] is now asking to make virtually all TBS decision-making unreviewable by the court system.”

The International Refugee Assistance Project is a nonprofit organization that works with people seeking refuge from displacement, who are in transit, or are looking for pathways to resettle. They provide direct representation, policy, advocacy and litigation.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Haitian Prime Minister Alix Fils-Aimé on April 21, reaffirming U.S. support for the country’s security and stability while emphasizing the importance of improving conditions to enable elections and long-term recovery, according to a State Department readout provided to Military.com.

Military.com reached out to DHS for comment.

Legislative Powers vs. Executive Authority

At the heart of the hearings is whether long-term precedent could shift in favor of the executive rather than the legislative body in Washington.

Hauptman said that while TPS was a congressionally designated program and not something left entirely to executive discretion, concerns on her and others’ behalf is that a Court decision in the administration’s favor would “essentially leave the executive with enormous unreviewable discretion to terminate the program without going back to Congress.”

“It's been a really important program allowing people to have established in the United States, to access work permits, to build lives here,” she said. “TPS holders are homeowners, they're business owners, they are doctors or teachers, they fill really important roles in our communities.”

She said several “Friend of the Court” (Amicus curiae) briefs that have been filed in their case from congresspeople, state attorneys general, economists, as well as a coalition of elder care providers talking about the contributions of TPS holders to their communities—notably being part of the U.S. workforce, especially in jobs with higher vacancy rates.

“I think the effect would be quite devastating,” Hauptman said. “TPS holders really provide an incredible contribution to this country.”

Main Things to Watch

Rosanna Berardi, managing partner of New York-based Berardi Immigration Law, agreed that an outcome of this case to observe is whether courts can review TPS termination decisions or whether the executive would have that singular discretion.

She told Military.com that she’s focusing on these others key issues before the Court, specifically pertaining to the Haitian TPS argument:

• Executive Authority - How much power the administration has to end humanitarian protections tied to foreign conditions without judicial oversight.
• Process and Legality - Whether DHS followed required statutory procedures, including evaluating country conditions and building an adequate record.
• National Security Framing - To what extent TPS decisions are considered foreign policy or national security determinations, and therefore insulated from court review.
• Policy Stability - The impact on consistency and predictability in U.S. immigration policy for individuals, employers and communities.
• Future Precedent - How this ruling will shape the ability of future administrations to expand or terminate TPS programs across all designated countries.

“This case sits at the intersection of immigration, foreign policy and executive authority,” Berardi said. “The Supreme Court is deciding whether decisions that affect hundreds of thousands of people, and are often justified on national security grounds, can be made without meaningful judicial oversight."

The outcome will shape not just TPS, but how stable and predictable U.S. immigration policy is going forward.

Hauptman described it as part of a “larger de-documentation campaign” she said aims to strip legal status from people who currently have it, exposing them to deportation and detention, and widening the scope of who the administration can seek to deport from the country.

Opponents argue that repeated extensions are pushing TPS beyond its original purpose, transforming a humanitarian safeguard into what they view as a long-term immigration policy without proper oversight.

The Center for Immigration Studies said the legislation would “further cement the transformation of a temporary humanitarian tool into a de facto permanent program.”

Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the group, told Military.com that repeated extensions risk reshaping how future administrations apply the authority.

“Temporary Protected Status was never meant to be permanent,” Arthur said.

Effect of DHS Leadership Change

When the current cases were initially fomented last year by then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, she cited “stable institutional governance” in Syria. As for Haiti, Noem said at the time that “no extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti that prevent Haitian nationals…from returning in safety.”

Military.com asked Hauptman what she believes current DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin wants out of this case, and if he would concur with Noem’s reasoning and that of the overall administration.

“It's hard to say what Secretary Mullin will do, except for to say that we view this as Secretary Noem very much following a larger agenda that the president and vice president spoke very openly about their desire to end the TPS program regardless of country conditions,” Hauptman said. “We are talking about humanitarian protections here for countries that are very much still in crisis."

And contrary to Secretary Noem's representation, the U.S. government itself has repeatedly recognized that it is not safe to travel to Syria and Haiti.

She cited documentation of such hazards promoting caution, include travel advisories issued by the U.S. State Department warning against travel to both Haiti and Syria. The State Department’s April 16 travel advisory told U.S. citizens not to travel to Haiti due to crime, terrorism, kidnapping, unrest and limited health care.

“Those travel advisors even discussed that if U.S. citizens travel to these countries, that they should be leaving DNA samples, preparing wills, having a proof of life protocol,” she added. "These are not countries that the administration has said are safe in other contexts.

“Yet, all of the administration has ignored all of this and still terminated TPS without going through the required consultation and country conditions review. We're arguing this is against the law.”

House Support for TPS Met with 'Veto Threat'

The highest court in the land is hearing these cases following legislation recently approved in the U.S. House of Representatives that would bolster TPS protections rather than decrease or eliminate them outright.

On April 16, the House voted 224-204 to pass H.R. 1689, introduced by Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Laura Gillen (D-NY), to extend TPS for Haitian nationals through 2029.

Gillen told Military.com the measure reflects a broader push to protect Haitian nationals already living in the United States, calling its passage a result of sustained effort and local support.

But the legislation faces long odds in the GOP-controlled Senate. Even if it passed in that chamber, the White House is confident that it would be met with a veto.

A senior administration official told Military.com on Friday that the administration views the legislation as dead on arrival.

“The administration understands members have to vote their districts at times,” the official said. “This terrible bill is going nowhere and there has been a veto threat issued.”

The official added the administration remains focused on enforcing federal immigration law and “putting American citizens first.”

Darius Radzius contributed to this story.