Supreme Court Cases Could Impact Status of TPS Holders
The future of numerous individuals who have legally resided in the United States for more than a decade hangs in the balance as President Trump prepares to pursue mass deportations, contingent upon the outcomes of two pivotal cases in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Central to this legal battle is the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, designed to permit eligible individuals to live and work in the U.S. when they cannot safely return to their home countries due to natural disasters, armed conflicts, or other extraordinary circumstances. Established by Congress in 1990, the TPS program sets the criteria for designating eligible persons fleeing perilous situations.
Since its inception, every president—Republican and Democrat alike—has upheld the TPS program, except for Trump, who seeks to dismantle it. The program has temporarily provided protection to eligible individuals from countries facing dire conditions. For example, Haiti was devastated by a catastrophic earthquake in 2010 that resulted in over 300,000 fatalities, leaving the nation plagued by gang violence and ongoing humanitarian crises. Similarly, a limited number of Syrians, approximately 7,000, have received TPS as their country endures civil war and bombardments.
Understanding the Framework of TPS
President Trump’s stance on TPS-designated countries is no secret. He has previously expressed controversial views about immigrants from these nations, making statements suggesting a preference for immigrants from Scandinavian countries. TPS operates differently from standard immigration benefits, applying exclusively to those who have maintained legal residency in the U.S. since their specific country’s TPS designation. While they are allowed to stay, those under TPS must navigate strict eligibility criteria.
“Potential beneficiaries must undergo a rigorous vetting process,” noted Ahilan Arulanantham, who is representing the Syrians in the upcoming lawsuit. “This includes background checks, biometric screenings, and assessments against government databases, where even two misdemeanors would disqualify an individual.” Furthermore, TPS recipients must renew their status every 18 months, effectively restarting the application process.
Judicial Involvement in TPS Matters
The Trump administration contends that under the 1990 TPS Act, decisions regarding status determinations are not open to judicial review. In their legal brief, officials argue that the law is comprehensive and precludes court intervention concerning TPS provisions.
Support for the administration comes from 21 Republican attorneys general, including Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who highlighted that some of the 17 countries currently designated as unsafe for return have maintained their listings for over ten years. “Temporary Protected Status was never designed to serve as a long-term amnesty solution,” Kobach emphasized.
In contrast, attorneys representing Haitian and Syrian TPS holders assert that the prohibition on judicial review refers only to certain sections of the law. They argue that the Trump administration has failed to adhere to the procedural requirements set forth by both the TPS program and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), enacted 80 years ago to ensure federal agencies operate transparently and abide by established rules.
Critique of DHS Findings
In relation to Haitian nationals, former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem revoked Haiti’s TPS designation following a presidential executive order, citing a lack of extraordinary circumstances as justification. She further claimed that even if conditions in Haiti were deemed unsafe, ending TPS protections would align with national interests.
Noem provided similar reasons for the termination of TPS for Syrians, arguing that issues surrounding the vetting process undermined their eligibility. Historically, the Supreme Court has deferred to executive branch claims in immigration matters, citing the importance of national security and public safety. However, TPS advocates intend to challenge the credibility of the findings, suggesting they lacked the necessary depth and consultation with the State Department, which only offered a cursory endorsement of the DHS Secretary’s conclusions.
Claims Beyond Immigration Law
The Haitian case includes a claim of racial discrimination against the Trump administration. Plaintiffs have pointed to inflammatory statements from the President, including his derogatory comments made during a recent presidential debate. Notably, the Supreme Court has previously dismissed such incendiary language, classifying it as political discourse rather than grounds for legal action.
While lower courts have ruled in favor of Haitian and Syrian TPS recipients in preliminary hearings, the Supreme Court has often criticized lower judiciary overreach in immigration cases. Historically, the court’s conservative majority has tended to respect the administration’s stances on TPS and immigration policy.
Copyright 2026 NPR
