Supreme Court decision threatens legal status of 1.3 million TPS beneficiaries
Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Homeland Security secretary's decision to terminate TPS cannot be reviewed by courts, threatening the legal status of nearly 1.3 million immigrants.
Objective Facts
On June 25, 2026, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims challenging the Trump administration's termination of TPS for Haitian and Syrian nationals, clearing the way for the Department of Homeland Security to end protections for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, holding that the statutory provision barring "judicial review of any determination" related to a TPS designation was "clear" and "very broad." When the Trump administration terminated TPS for Haiti, Syria, and other countries, courts determined that the administration failed to abide by required procedures established by Congress. Under those procedures, TPS should only be terminated if an interagency review determines that conditions in the country have improved. Documents uncovered during the Haitian TPS case revealed that the Trump administration failed to follow required legal procedures and ignored ongoing dangers in Haiti. The Supreme Court's decision means many TPS holders will be at "almost immediate risk, or immediate risk, depending on the country, of arrest, detention, and deportation," and "Overwhelmingly, individuals with TPS are facing deportation to countries that are too dangerous to return to, as determined by our State Department."
Left-Leaning Perspective
The Boston Globe wrote that the TPS decision means 1.3 million people will "lose their legal status, including permission to work here," and noted they will "leave, go underground, or attempt to find another legal way to remain, by petitioning a government that is openly hostile to them." The column noted that Justice Elena Kagan listed many "repellent and racially inflected" statements by the president, which were "shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes" and references to "filth, disease and primitiveness."
Right-Leaning Perspective
Commentary published in The Mining Journal (Wall Street Journal editorial perspective) argued that "The Supreme Court on Thursday expanded President Trump's power over immigration—or so the press proclaims" but "the six conservative Justices merely ruled that judges can't usurp power that Congress delegated to the President." The commentary noted that Justice Alito's opinion "leaned on the plain text" and found the word "temporary" does real work. A right-leaning outlet noted the decision "reinforces that TPS is temporary by design" and "limits the ability of district courts to issue nationwide or sweeping injunctions that effectively rewrite immigration policy."
Deep Dive
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Mullin v. Doe, consolidated with Trump v. Miot, that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims challenging the Trump administration's termination of TPS for Haitian and Syrian nationals. In a 6-3 decision issued on June 25, the Court ruled along ideological lines, clearing the way for the Department of Homeland Security to end protections for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. When the Trump administration terminated TPS for Haiti, Syria, and other countries, courts determined that the administration had failed to abide by required procedures established by Congress. Under those procedures, TPS should only be terminated if an interagency review determines that conditions in the country have improved. Documents uncovered during the Haitian TPS case revealed that the administration failed to follow required legal procedures and ignored ongoing dangers in Haiti. Despite this, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the TPS statute limiting lawsuits challenging TPS determinations prevented courts from hearing lawsuits challenging the failure to follow the required legal procedures. The decision effectively bars federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over all statutory claims to enforce compliance with the TPS decision-making process, removing any ability for noncitizens lawfully in the country to go to court to compel the administration to comply with the TPS statute that Congress crafted in 1990. During oral arguments, Justice Jackson asked "what was the point of Congress putting this statute into being and having requirements for the Secretary if there was no ability for anyone to challenge the Secretary's compliance?" and Justice Sotomayor said, "What you basically are saying is that Congress wrote a statute for no purpose." However, the conservative majority found that the statute's plain language barred all judicial review except on constitutional grounds. What the left characterizes as abdication of judicial responsibility, the right views as proper deference to executive power explicitly delegated by Congress. The impact of the decision is likely to be very significant in communities with large numbers of TPS recipients. Healthcare groups have flagged that thousands of Haitian nurses, home health aides, and other healthcare workers are expected to lose their jobs. Beyond Haitian TPS, over 600,000 Venezuelans granted TPS were also hoping that a favorable decision would permit them to resume their lawful status, but those hopes seem likely to be dashed now. The critical unanswered question is whether Congress will act to provide permanent legal status, as advocates urge, or whether TPS will continue to depend entirely on executive discretion with minimal judicial oversight.