Supreme Court Hears Arguments on TPS Terminations for Haiti and Syria — Ruling Threatens 335,000 Holders
The Supreme Court heard 105 minutes of argument on April 29 in consolidated cases challenging the Trump administration's termination of Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian nationals. The government argued that federal law bars courts from reviewing any TPS termination decision. A ruling is expected by late June or early July 2026.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 29, 2026, in two consolidated cases — Mullin v. Doe (No. 25-1083) and Trump v. Miot (No. 25-1084) — reviewing whether the Trump administration lawfully terminated Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian nationals living in the United States. The cases will determine the legal framework governing TPS for an estimated 335,000 Haitian and Syrian nationals, with implications for the roughly 1.3 million TPS holders from 17 countries.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the government. Ahilan Arulanantham argued for Syrian TPS holders in Mullin v. Doe; Geoffrey Pipoly argued for Haitian nationals in Trump v. Miot.
The Government's Position
Sauer argued that a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act bars judicial review of any DHS determination regarding TPS designation or termination — including not only the final decision but each procedural step leading to it. "That provision means what it says," Sauer told the Court, contending that the language forecloses review across the board.
Challengers' Responses
Arulanantham argued that even if the ultimate termination decision is unreviewable, the Secretary of Homeland Security must comply with the procedural requirements Congress enacted. "The secretary must turn square corners, follow the rules Congress set," Arulanantham said.
Pipoly challenged the substantive basis for the Haiti termination. He characterized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's decision as stemming from "President Donald Trump's racial animus toward non-white immigrants."
Justice Questions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Sauer on why Congress would have enacted specific procedural requirements for TPS terminations if courts could not review compliance with those requirements. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether a termination announced via social media effective the following day — without the required Federal Register publication or 60-day advance notice — would also be unreviewable under the government's theory. Justice Elena Kagan drew a distinction between substantive and procedural reviewability, probing where the government's position would draw the line. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned both sides on the practical value of procedural review without substantive oversight.
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed doubt about extending Trump v. Hawaii — the 2018 travel ban precedent — to cover individuals already present in the United States under lawful status. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether racial animus claims had merit in the context of decisions about country conditions.
Background
Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 following an earthquake that killed more than 300,000 people. Syria was designated in 2012 due to the civil conflict. Both designations were repeatedly extended under successive administrations. Secretary Noem announced Haiti's termination on November 28, 2025, in a Federal Register notice (90 Fed. Reg. 54733). A parallel termination for Syria followed.
Federal district courts in the Southern District of New York (Syria, Dahlia Doe v. Noem) and the District of Columbia (Haiti, Miot v. Trump) ruled against the terminations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment on March 16, 2026, taking the cases directly from the district court.
What Comes Next
A decision is expected by late June or early July 2026, at the end of the Court's October Term 2025. The ruling will set the reviewability framework for TPS terminations across all 17 currently designated countries.