The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday to lift lower court injunctions that had temporarily halted the federal government’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for individuals living in the United States from Syria and Haiti. The decision allows the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with ending the humanitarian programs, which have allowed hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals to live and work legally in the U.S. for years.
Justice Samuel Alito announced the judgment of the court, writing that the federal TPS statute explicitly prevents judges from intervening in the executive branch’s management of the program.
“The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims,” Alito wrote for the majority. He pointed directly to the text of the law, which states there is “no judicial review of any determination . . . with respect to the . . . termination” of a TPS designation.
The legal battle landed at the Supreme Court after groups of Syrian and Haitian nationals filed separate lawsuits in New York and Washington, D.C. They argued that the administration violated federal law by failing to properly consult with relevant government agencies about actual safety conditions in Syria and Haiti before ordering the ends to their protected status. The lower courts had agreed to pause the terminations, ruling that while final decisions might be unreviewable, judges could still evaluate whether the government followed correct administrative procedures.
The Supreme Court majority rejected that distinction, concluding that the statutory bar on judicial review covers both the final decision and the entire administrative process leading up to it.
The court also addressed a constitutional equal protection claim brought specifically by the Haitian plaintiffs. They argued that the decision to end Haiti’s TPS designation was driven by racial animus, citing public statements made by President Donald Trump and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem regarding immigrants from non-white nations.
The majority found that the discrimination claim was unlikely to succeed on its merits. Alito noted that the administration had consistently terminated all 13 TPS designations that came up for renewal during the current term, encompassing a diverse group of nations across Africa, the Middle East, Central America, and Asia. The court concluded that the administration “simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past,” which provided a valid, race-neutral explanation for its actions.
“None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications,” Alito wrote. He added that while poverty and deprivation in Haiti are difficult, “one may oppose TPS and favor tighter restrictions on immigration for economic or other reasons that have nothing to do with race.”
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate concurring opinion, arguing that federal courts lack jurisdiction over the matter entirely, including any constitutional claims. Thomas wrote that the statutory language of “no judicial review” is absolute and leaves no room for exceptions based on the legal theory presented. He also asserted that the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees do not apply to federal immigration status decisions for non-citizens, describing TPS as a government-created privilege rather than a core private right.
Justice Elena Kagan issued a sharp dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan argued that the majority’s interpretation effectively makes the mandatory requirements passed by Congress optional, leaving the executive branch entirely unchecked even if it fails to evaluate country conditions at all.
Kagan stated that the required agency consultations never truly happened, describing the brief email exchanges between Homeland Security aides and the State Department as a rubber-stamp exercise about “foreign policy concerns” rather than actual safety on the ground. “The consultation required by law never took place because there was no two-way communication about the right subject,” Kagan wrote.
The dissent also argued that the Haitian plaintiffs had presented clear evidence of racial bias, pointing directly to the president’s repeated derogatory public comments about Haiti and its citizens. Kagan wrote that under established legal standards, the plaintiffs did not need to prove race was the sole factor, only that it was a motivating one.
“The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country,” Kagan wrote, warning that hundreds of thousands of lives will be permanently uprooted while the underlying litigation continues.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the cases are remanded back to the lower courts, and the temporary protections keeping the terminations on hold are dissolved.
READ: Just Across The Line: Supreme Court Rules Immigrants In Mexico Haven’t Legally ‘Arrived’ In The U.S.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
