The Supreme Court Just Shut the Door on TPS Challenges — What It Means for Haitian and Syrian Holders
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential immigration rulings in years. In Mullin v. Doe, a 6-3 decision written by Justice Alito, the Court reversed lower court orders that had temporarily blocked the termination of Temporary Protected Status for nationals of Haiti and Syria. The ruling clears the way for those terminations to take effect and, more broadly, makes it dramatically harder for TPS holders to challenge future terminations in court.
If you or someone you know holds TPS — or is otherwise affected by this decision — here is what you need to understand.
What Is TPS and Why Does It Matter?
Temporary Protected Status is a humanitarian program Congress created in 1990. It provides work authorization and protection from deportation to foreign nationals already living in the United States whose home countries have been struck by armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary conditions that make return unsafe.
Haiti received its TPS designation in 2010 following a catastrophic earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands and devastated the country's infrastructure. Syria received its designation in 2012 in response to the Assad regime's brutal crackdown on civilians, which eventually escalated into a civil war that claimed more than 500,000 lives. Both designations have been repeatedly extended by successive administrations as conditions in those countries remained too dangerous for safe return.
The current administration moved to terminate both designations in late 2025. TPS holders in each country sued to block those terminations while litigation proceeded, and lower courts agreed, granting temporary relief. The Supreme Court reversed those rulings.
What the Court Decided
The case presented two central questions. The Court ruled against TPS holders on both.
First: Can courts review non-constitutional challenges to TPS terminations?
No. The TPS statute contains a provision stating that there 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 Court read this broadly to bar essentially all non-constitutional challenges — including claims that the Secretary failed to properly consult with other government agencies before terminating TPS, as required by the statute.
This was the more significant legal ruling. Challengers had argued that the bar only applied to the Secretary's final determination about country conditions, not to procedural violations that preceded that decision. The Court disagreed, holding that procedural steps leading to a decision are part of the "determination" itself and equally unreviewable. In practice, this means that even if the Secretary terminates TPS without following the procedures Congress required — without consulting other agencies, without reviewing actual country conditions — courts cannot intervene.
Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, called this conclusion dangerous and wrong. In her view, the statute's judicial-review bar was never meant to insulate the Secretary's compliance with mandatory procedures from any oversight. She warned that after this ruling, a Secretary could openly announce she consulted no one and reviewed no conditions before terminating TPS, and courts would be powerless to respond.
Second: Was Haiti's TPS termination motivated by racial discrimination?
The Haitian plaintiffs brought an equal protection claim, arguing that the termination of Haiti's TPS designation was driven at least in part by racial animus — pointing to statements made by the President characterizing Haitian immigrants in derogatory and racially coded terms.
The Court assumed, without deciding, that the more demanding Arlington Heights standard applied — which requires showing that discriminatory purpose was "a motivating factor" in the decision. Even under that standard, the majority concluded the Haitian plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed. The Court's reasoning: the administration's across-the-board termination of every TPS designation that came up for renewal — 13 in total, spanning countries across Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Central America, and the Caribbean — provided a sufficient race-neutral explanation for Haiti's termination specifically.
Justice Kagan's dissent sharply disagreed. She quoted at length the statements the majority declined to reproduce and argued they were plainly racial in character — invoking disease, contamination, and subhuman conduct in ways that would be unimaginable directed at white communities. She argued that under Arlington Heights, race does not need to be the only reason or even the primary reason; it needs only to be a motivating factor. In her view, the evidence more than satisfied that standard.
Justice Thomas filed a concurrence going further, arguing that TPS holders have no equal protection rights against the federal government at all — and suggesting the Court's longstanding precedent recognizing such rights should be reconsidered.
What Happens Now
The immediate practical effect is that the TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria can proceed. Hundreds of thousands of people who have lived and worked legally in the United States — in some cases for well over a decade — now face the loss of their status and work authorization, and in most cases will have no legal basis to remain.
The cases are remanded to the lower courts for further proceedings, but with the judicial-review bar now firmly established, the legal avenues for challenging these terminations are extremely narrow. Constitutional claims — like the equal protection claim brought by the Haitian plaintiffs — remain theoretically available, but the Court's ruling signals those claims face steep obstacles.
The decision also effectively ratifies the administration's approach of terminating every TPS designation that comes up for renewal. The Secretary has terminated 13 designations in total. Ukraine's designation, the only remaining European TPS country, is set to come up for review later in 2026.
What TPS Holders Should Do Now
If you currently hold TPS and your designation has been or may be terminated, you should consult with an immigration attorney as soon as possible. Depending on your circumstances, you may have options — including potential pathways through family relationships, employment, or other forms of relief — that could provide an alternative legal status. The window to explore those options is narrowing.
The law in this area is moving quickly, and the stakes could not be higher. If you have questions about how this decision affects your situation, our office is here to help.