Supreme Court weighs Trump's effort to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians, Syrians

Twenty-one Republican attorneys general are supporting the administration — among them, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach. He notes that under TPS some of the 17 countries that have been designated as too dangerous to go back to, have been on the protected status list for more than a decade.

"Temporary protective status was never intended to be a de facto amnesty," says Kobach. "That status, as its name suggests, is temporary."

Lawyers for the Haitians and Syrians counter that the provision barring court review applies to only to one section of the law, not the rest. And they assert that the Trump administration has failed to comply with the procedures mandated in the TPS program and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The APA , as it's known, was enacted 80 years ago, and sets the rules of the road for how federal agencies develop, issue, and enforce regulations. It requires agencies to follow specific, transparent procedures and, importantly, it provides a framework for judicial review of agency actions in order to prevent arbitrary decisions.

DHS finding criticized

Specifically, in the case of the Haitian nationals, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem terminated Haiti's TPS status in response to a Trump executive order.She gave two reasons: First, that there are no extraordinary conditions in Haiti that prevent Haitians with TPS status from returning home in safety. And, second, that even if Haiti were unsafe, termination of TPS protection is still required because, "it is contrary to the national interest."

Noem made similar findings for Syria, citing problems with vetting Syrian nationals, and pointing to two Syrians under criminal investigation, neither of whom had TPS.

Regardless, the administration notes that, traditionally, the Supreme Court has been highly deferential to executive branch claims in the area of immigration because they involve "critically important" matters of "national security and public safety."

Lawyers for the TPS recipients will tell the court, however, that the findings in both cases were entirely "pretextual," meaning a sham. They contend that rather than conduct the required extensive consultation with the U.S. State Department about conditions in those countries—a consultation that is mandated by law—the State Department rubber-stamped the DHS secretary's findings with a two-sentence statement.

One claim that does not involve immigration law

The Haitians do have one claim that does not fall under the umbrella of immigration. They contend that the Trump administration has discriminated against them based on their race. And they cite in particular some of Trump's more inflammatory language, for instance, claiming falsely in a presidential debate in September 2024, that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, "are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there."

The Supreme Court, however, has refused to consider such language in previous cases, calling it "political."

In the lower courts, both the Haitians and Syrians did prevail on TPS, on a preliminary basis. But the Supreme Court has been critical of lower court judges in other immigration cases for stepping outside of their lane. And prior to this case, the court's conservative majority has largely deferred to the administration.