The Supreme Court recently announced its intention to hear arguments on the Trump administration’s initiative to rescind Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from Syrian and Haitian nationals. This decision is poised to impact not only these two cases but also several ongoing lawsuits challenging the administration’s revisions to the TPS program, a mechanism allowing eligible non-citizens to reside and work temporarily in the United States.
TPS was established in 1990 under Title III of the Immigration Act, empowering the attorney general—later transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary—to designate countries deemed unsafe due to war, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions. These designations grant nationals of such countries temporary protection from deportation and work authorization in the U.S., with reviews every six, 12, or 18 months.
As of March 2025, nearly 1.3 million people benefit from TPS across 17 countries. However, the Trump administration, led by former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, has attempted to terminate TPS status for 13 countries, such as Haiti, Syria, and Venezuela, arguing that TPS designations are inherently temporary.
This move led to various legal challenges alleging that Noem’s decisions were preordained and possibly racially or ethnically motivated. The administration argued that the courts lack jurisdiction to review TPS terminations, asserting compliance with all procedural requirements. Notably, most federal courts have sided with TPS holders, emphasizing their authority to review the DHS’s decision-making patterns and suggesting Noem’s actions might violate federal administrative law or demonstrate bias against nonwhite immigrants.
In previous cases, such as Noem v. National TPS Alliance concerning Venezuelans, the Supreme Court granted the administration’s requests to proceed with TPS terminations although lower courts had ruled in favor of maintaining TPS protections. The high court’s decisions in these instances, while not extensively detailed, set a precedent that the DHS requests for intervention could occasionally bypass lower court orders.
The Supreme Court’s involvement in the Haiti and Syria disputes will thereby clarify whether and how lower courts can challenge TPS designations initiated by the DHS. With arguments slated for late April and a verdict expected by early July, the outcome could reshape future applications of TPS and judicial oversight norms.
For ongoing updates and in-depth analysis, visit the full article on SCOTUSblog.