A group of Haitian citizens addressed the Supreme Court this week, requesting the dismissal of a dispute concerning the Trump administration’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians. The citizens argue that newly discovered information directly affects their claims, warranting the case to be dropped via “dismiss as improvidently granted.”
TPS, initiated through legislation enacted in 1990, allows citizens from designated countries to reside and work in the U.S. when it is unsafe for them to return to their home countries due to natural disasters, conflict, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions. Haiti received this designation shortly after a devastating earthquake in 2010 and had its status extended multiple times, with the latest extension lasting until 2025.
The conflict began when Kristi Noem, then Secretary of Homeland Security, announced plans to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation, pushing a group of Haitian nationals in the U.S. to challenge the decision in Washington, D.C., courts. These citizens alleged that the termination violated administrative law and was racially discriminatory. The lower courts sided with the Haitian citizens, preventing the program’s termination while the legal challenge proceeded.
Upon taking the matter to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration sought to stay the lower court’s decision, along with a similar case involving Syrian nationals. Although the justices heard oral arguments, the Haitian nationals have revealed what they claim to be “new facts,” suggesting that the termination of TPS was predetermined, relying on misinformation about consultations with the Department of State and asserting a novel rationale for its conclusion based on U.S. national interest.
The Haitian nationals disclosed that these facts could substantiate their position that Noem’s decision-making process did not comply with federal administrative law, lacking proper procedure and explanation. Given the ongoing development of these facts, the plaintiffs contend the Supreme Court should refrain from adjudicating the case’s merits at this juncture and remand the case for further fact-finding by lower courts.
This motion exclusively impacts the Haitian nationals’ case and would not automatically influence the related case concerning Syrian nationals. For more details, please refer to the comprehensive coverage on SCOTUSblog.