The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Donald Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 356,000 Haitian and Syrian nationals. The ruling could leave thousands of immigrants without work authorization or protection from deportation, while setting a significant legal precedent for future TPS cases in the United States.
The decision overturns lower court orders that had temporarily blocked the termination of the program and strengthens the Executive Branch's authority to end TPS designations without extensive judicial review.
What Exactly Did the U.S. Supreme Court Decide?
The June 25, 2026 ruling in the consolidated cases Mullin v. Doe (No. 25-1083) and Trump v. Miot (No. 25-1084) addressed a key legal question: Can Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries ask federal courts to block the termination of their TPS designation while legal challenges remain pending?
The Supreme Court's majority answered no. The Court held that the federal TPS statute—specifically 8 U.S.C. §1254a(b)(5)(A)—expressly limits judicial review of decisions made by the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding the designation, extension, or termination of Temporary Protected Status.
What it did not do: The Court did not declare Haiti or Syria to be safe countries. It did not order the automatic deportation of TPS beneficiaries. It also did not rule on the underlying legal claims challenging whether the TPS terminations were lawful or discriminatory. Those lawsuits will continue in the lower federal courts.
The 6–3 Vote: How the Justices Ruled
Samuel Alito (Opinion Author)
John Roberts
Clarence Thomas
Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett
Elena Kagan (Dissent Author)
Sonia Sotomayor
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Note: Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered her dissent orally from the bench—an uncommon step generally reserved for cases that a justice considers especially significant.
The vote followed the Court's familiar ideological divide, mirroring previous immigration decisions issued during President Trump's first administration as well as recent TPS litigation involving Venezuelan nationals. One of the most notable moments occurred when Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, an unusual practice typically reserved for cases involving profound disagreement. Justice Samuel Alito publicly responded before the Court moved on to the next case, an exchange that legal observers described as highly unusual.
↑ Back to Table of ContentsThe Two Supreme Court Cases: Different Facts, Same Outcome
Five Haitian Nationals v. Secretary Kristi Noem
Five Haitian nationals filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem unlawfully terminated Haiti's TPS designation without consulting other federal agencies and that the decision was motivated by racial discrimination. The district court agreed, finding evidence of what it described as "anti-Black and anti-Haitian animus." The U.S. Court of Appeals later declined to stay that ruling.
Seven Syrian Nationals in New York
Seven Syrian nationals—some current TPS holders and others seeking protection—filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In November 2025, the federal judge ruled in their favor, concluding that Secretary Noem failed to follow the legal procedures required to terminate Syria's TPS designation. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals also refused to suspend that order.
Plaintiffs Alleged the Government Relied on a False Statement
During proceedings before the Supreme Court, attorneys representing the Haitian plaintiffs argued that the federal government relied on what they described as "a knowingly false statement" claiming that Secretary Noem had consulted with the U.S. Department of State before ending Haiti's TPS designation. According to the plaintiffs, no such consultation occurred. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion did not address this allegation.
