On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, agreed with the Trump administration and held that courts cannot review the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination to designate or terminate the designation of a foreign country for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). In this post, we will discuss the case, Mullin v. Doe, its background, and the significant impact it is likely to have.
- The U.S. Supreme Court held 6-3 that courts cannot review Temporary Protected Status designations or terminations, blocking Administrative Procedure Act challenges.
- The ruling lets the Trump administration end TPS for Haiti and Syria, threatening status and work authorization for over 300,000 affected individuals.
- The decision in Mullin v. Doe paves the way to terminate TPS for other countries, including Venezuela, Ukraine, and El Salvador, affecting over a million people.
Temporary Protected Status and the Road to the Supreme Court
How Temporary Protected Status Works
Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, was created by the U.S. Congress in 1990 as a way for the government to provide short-term humanitarian relief for foreign nationals inside the U.S. who cannot safely return to their home countries, often as a result of natural disasters or repression. Historically, TPS has frequently been extended after its initial period.
Why Haiti and Syria Received TPS Designations
Haiti and Syria were both designated countries for TPS. Haiti was first designated in the wake of the earthquake that devastated the country in 2010. Syria was designated in 2012 due to the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad. Currently it is estimated that over 300,000 Haitians and over 5,000 Syrians have TPS. Many of these individuals have work authorization, jobs, and families in the U.S.
How the TPS Terminations Reached the Courts
In 2025, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem gave notice that TPS for both Haiti and Syria would be terminated. Nationals of both countries sued, arguing that the government’s termination of TPS violated the Administrative Procedure Act and, in the case of the Haitian TPS termination, that the termination violated the constitutional right to equal protection since it was based on racial animus that had been voiced by the Trump administration.
The courts overseeing the two cases granted interim relief to the Syrian and Haitian plaintiffs, and the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit (respectively) declined to issue a stay – thus preventing the U.S. government from terminating the designations.
The Question Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was asked by the government to stay the lower courts’ decisions and to, in effect, allow the government to proceed with terminating the TPS designations for Haiti and Syria.
The Holding: No Judicial Review of TPS Terminations
Justice Alito and the majority held that the TPS statute prevents courts from reviewing non-constitutional claims relating to the government’s designation or termination of a country for TPS. This would include challenges based on the Administrative Procedure Act.
What the TPS Statute Says
In doing so, they focused on the language of the TPS statute (8 USC section 1254a(b)(5)(A)), which reads: “[t]here is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation of a foreign state.”
The Equal Protection Claim and the Dissent
Notably, the Haitian plaintiffs, as noted before, did assert a constitutional claim, arguing that the decision to terminate TPS for Haiti was based on racial animus. To this, the Court seemed to ignore many of the overtly racist statements that the President and his administration have made – an omission that Justice Kagan called attention to in her dissent. The majority then reached the conclusion that the Haitian plaintiffs are “unlikely to prove that race was a motivating factor” when the government decided to terminate TPS designation for Haiti. The Court found it notable that the Trump administration had taken steps to end TPS for every country eligible for renewal.
The Impact of the TPS Ruling
What Happens to Work Authorization
The Mullin v. Doe decision removes the final hurdle in the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate the TPS designations for Haiti and Syria. In the coming days, the administration is likely to pursue termination of the designations of these two countries, which will directly affect the more than 300,000 people from these two countries who are currently in the U.S. with TPS. It is likely that their work authorization will end in the coming days, leading their employers to scramble to fill vacancies.
Options for Those Losing TPS
Additionally, those who currently have TPS will need to rapidly apply for an alternative status or form of relief in the U.S. (such as asylum), will leave the United States, or will fall out of status within the U.S. – which carries with it a variety of risks. The Trump administration is expected to focus on this latter group of individuals as it attempts to increase its stated quotas for detentions and deportations.
Which Countries Could Lose TPS Next
Finally, though this decision applied specifically to Haitians and Syrians, it opens the door to the government terminating TPS for other designated countries, including Venezuela, Ukraine, and El Salvador. (The full list of countries currently designated for TPS can be found here). The consequence of this could be more than a million people who currently hold TPS in the U.S. being left without work authorization or status in the country, and being targeted for deportation should they not depart upon the expiration of their status.
Speak With an Immigration Lawyer About Your TPS Options
The termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria leaves many people with a narrow window to secure another status. Scott Legal, P.C. advises individuals and employers on the options that remain, including asylum, family and employment based petitions, and other forms of relief. Schedule a consultation with our team to review your circumstances and understand what steps are available to you.
