Pull to refresh
Logo
Daily Brief
Following Why Ranks Sign Up
Supreme Court reviews Haiti and Syria TPS terminations

Supreme Court reviews Haiti and Syria TPS terminations

Rule Changes

Justices weigh whether courts can second-guess the Trump administration's decision to end deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of long-term residents

April 29th, 2026: Supreme Court hears oral arguments

Overview

Haitians have lived legally in the United States under a federal humanitarian program since the 2010 earthquake. Syrians have used the same program since their civil war began. On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court spent 80 minutes considering whether the Trump administration can revoke those protections — and whether any court can second-guess the decision.

The consolidated cases, Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, ask the justices to decide two questions: Can federal courts review the Homeland Security Secretary's decision to terminate a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation? And if so, did Secretary Kristi Noem follow the procedure Congress wrote into the Immigration and Nationality Act? A ruling is expected by late June. Roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians could lose work authorization and face deportation if the Court sides with the administration.

Why it matters

If the Court sides with the administration, more than a million long-term residents from 17 countries could lose work permits and face deportation.

Play on this story Voices Debate Predict

Key Indicators

350,000
Haitian TPS holders
Long-term U.S. residents whose deportation protection hinges on the ruling.
~6,100
Syrian TPS holders
Plus 800 Syrians with pending applications also facing termination.
80
Minutes of oral argument
The Court extended the standard hour for the final argument of its April session.
1.3M
Total TPS holders
Across the 17 currently designated countries — a broad ruling could touch them all.
Late June
Expected ruling
The decision will arrive before the Court's summer recess.

Interactive

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

People Involved

Kristi Noem
Kristi Noem
Defending TPS terminations she signed in 2025
 D. John Sauer
D. John Sauer
Argued the cases for the administration on April 29, 2026
 Katherine Polk Failla
Katherine Polk Failla
Blocked Syria TPS termination in November 2025
 Ana C. Reyes
Ana C. Reyes
Blocked Haiti TPS termination in February 2026

Organizations Involved

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Federal Agency
Defendant in Syria case, petitioner in Haiti case

The cabinet department whose Secretary holds statutory authority to designate and terminate TPS country listings.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Federal Court
Hearing consolidated cases

The nation's highest court, which granted certiorari before judgment to fast-track the TPS cases.
ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of Northern California
Civil Liberties Organization
Co-counsel for Syrian plaintiffs

Lead organizational counsel for the Syrian TPS holders in Mullin v. Doe.

Timeline

  1. Supreme Court hears oral arguments

    Legal

    The justices hear 80 minutes of argument in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot. The administration argues the terminations are unreviewable; challengers argue Noem ignored statutory procedure and acted on discriminatory grounds.

  2. Supreme Court fast-tracks both cases

    Legal

    The Court defers the stay request but grants certiorari before judgment, consolidating the Syria and Haiti cases and scheduling oral argument for the final day of the April session.

  3. Solicitor General petitions Supreme Court

    Legal

    Solicitor General D. John Sauer files an application for stay and a request for certiorari before judgment, asking the justices to bypass the appeals court and rule directly.

  4. Federal judge blocks Haiti TPS termination

    Legal

    U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington stays the termination one day before it would take effect, finding plaintiffs substantially likely to prove discrimination against nonwhite immigrants.

  5. Haitian plaintiffs sue in D.C. federal court

    Legal

    Five Haitian TPS holders file the class action that becomes Trump v. Miot, alleging the termination was procedurally invalid and motivated by racial animus.

  6. Noem terminates Haiti TPS

    Executive Action

    DHS announces Haiti's TPS designation will end February 3, 2026, citing both the absence of extraordinary conditions in Haiti and a determination that continued protection is contrary to the national interest.

  7. Federal judge blocks Syria TPS termination

    Legal

    U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla in New York issues a preliminary injunction halting the Syria termination two days before it would take effect, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on Administrative Procedure Act claims.

  8. Supreme Court allows Venezuela TPS termination

    Legal

    In an unsigned shadow-docket order, the Court grants the government's request to lift a district court injunction, clearing the way for DHS to strip TPS from roughly 600,000 Venezuelans.

  9. Noem terminates Syria TPS

    Executive Action

    DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announces Syria's TPS designation will end November 21, citing Syria's purported move toward stable institutional governance after Assad's December 2024 fall.

  10. Syria designated for TPS amid civil war

    Designation

    DHS designates Syria for TPS as Bashar al-Assad's crackdown escalates into full civil war. The designation is repeatedly extended over the following 13 years.

  11. Haiti designated for TPS after earthquake

    Designation

    DHS designates Haiti for TPS following the January 12 earthquake that killed an estimated 200,000 people. The designation has been extended every 18 months for 16 years.

  12. Congress creates Temporary Protected Status

    Legislation

    President George H.W. Bush signs the Immigration Act of 1990, establishing TPS as a humanitarian protection from deportation for nationals of countries facing armed conflict, disaster, or other extraordinary conditions.

Scenarios

Predict which scenario wins. Contrarian picks score more — points lock in when the scenario resolves.

Log in to predict. Track your picks, climb the leaderboard. Log in Sign Up
1

Court rules terminations unreviewable, TPS ends for Haitians and Syrians

The Court holds that the Immigration and Nationality Act's review-bar provision shields the Secretary's termination decisions from judicial second-guessing — the same path the Ninth Circuit took in Ramos v. Nielsen before being vacated en banc. Lower-court injunctions dissolve, deportation protections lapse, and DHS proceeds with terminations for both countries. Given the Court's October 2025 Venezuela ruling and its conservative majority, several observers consider this the most likely outcome.

Discussed by: SCOTUSblog, Roll Call, conservative legal commentators
Consensus —
2

Court finds Secretary failed required procedure, terminations vacated

A majority finds judicial review available under the Administrative Procedure Act and concludes that Noem's terminations — particularly the Haiti notice preceded by a three-sentence inter-agency email — failed the statute's procedural requirements. The Court remands without reaching the racial-animus question, leaving DHS free to try again with a fuller process. Protections continue while the agency redoes the analysis.

Discussed by: ACLU, immigration scholars, plaintiffs' counsel
Consensus —
3

Court splits the cases, ruling differently on Haiti and Syria

The justices sustain Judge Failla's procedural ruling on Syria — where the stated stabilization rationale conflicts with State Department guidance — but reverse Judge Reyes on Haiti, finding the racial-animus theory insufficiently supported on the present record. Outcomes diverge by country, producing partial relief for Syrians and lifting the Haiti injunction.

Discussed by: Court watchers analyzing the differing lower-court rationales
Consensus —
4

Congress extends Haiti TPS legislatively, mooting the Haiti case

The House passed a Haiti TPS extension 224-204 in April; if a Senate companion clears before the ruling, statutory protection could supersede the executive action and render the Haiti case moot. Most observers consider Senate passage unlikely on the relevant timeline, but advocates are pressing for floor action.

Discussed by: Bipartisan House sponsors of the April 2026 extension bill
Consensus —

Historical Context

Ramos v. Nielsen (2018-2023)

March 2018 - February 2023

What Happened

During the first Trump administration, DHS moved to terminate TPS for El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan, affecting more than 300,000 people. Nine TPS holders and five U.S.-citizen children sued. A federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction; a divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed in 2020, holding the terminations were unreviewable.

Outcome

Short Term

TPS holders kept protections under the injunction throughout the first Trump term. The Biden administration redesignated the affected countries in 2021-2022, mooting much of the litigation.

Long Term

The en banc Ninth Circuit vacated the panel opinion in February 2023, leaving the reviewability question unresolved at the appellate level — the same question now squarely before the Supreme Court.

Why It's Relevant Today

Ramos is the direct predecessor litigation. The Trump administration's brief leans on the vacated Ninth Circuit panel reasoning, while challengers argue the en banc vacatur means that reasoning carries no weight.

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of UC (2020)

June 2020

What Happened

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the first Trump administration's rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated the Administrative Procedure Act because DHS had failed to adequately consider reliance interests. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion.

Outcome

Short Term

DACA was reinstated, protecting roughly 700,000 recipients from deportation. The administration's challenge to the program was sent back to the agency for further proceedings.

Long Term

The case established that immigration policy reversals — even discretionary ones — are reviewable under the APA when challenged on procedural grounds, a precedent the TPS challengers rely on heavily.

Why It's Relevant Today

Regents is the strongest precedent for the challengers' procedural argument. The administration's position is that TPS, unlike DACA, comes with an explicit statutory review bar that Regents did not address.

Noem v. National TPS Alliance (October 2025)

October 2025

What Happened

Six months before the Haiti and Syria arguments, the Supreme Court issued a brief unsigned order on its emergency docket allowing the administration to terminate TPS for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans, lifting a district court injunction. The Court provided no reasoning.

Outcome

Short Term

Venezuelan TPS holders lost work authorization and deportation protection effective immediately, with no merits ruling and no opportunity for full briefing.

Long Term

The order signaled that a majority of the Court is skeptical of injunctions blocking TPS terminations — but because it was a shadow-docket stay, it set no formal precedent on the underlying legal questions now being argued in Mullin and Miot.

Why It's Relevant Today

The Venezuela order is why the Haiti and Syria cases matter beyond their named beneficiaries: this is the Court's first chance to write a reasoned opinion on whether and how courts can review TPS terminations.

Sources

(10)
+4
SCOTUSblog Supreme Court of the United States ACLU of Northern California CBS News Roll Call USCIS SCOTUSblog SCOTUSblog ACLU of Northern California SCOTUSblog