Facts of the Case
Congress created the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program to allow foreign nationals from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to live and work legally in the United States on a temporary basis. Federal law requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to periodically review conditions in each designated country and, after consulting with other government agencies, determine whether those conditions still justify protection. Syria has held TPS designation for years, shielding its nationals from deportation to a country ravaged by civil war and humanitarian crisis.
Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, directing the Secretary to aggressively limit TPS designations. Secretary Kristi Noem then terminated TPS for Syria on September 19, 2025, with an effective date of November 21, 2025 — giving roughly 6,100 Syrian TPS holders weeks to lose their legal status, work authorization, and protection from deportation. Seven Syrian nationals with family ties in the United States sued, arguing that the termination violated federal immigration law, was arbitrary and capricious, and reflected discriminatory animus rather than a genuine, good-faith review of conditions in Syria.
The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion and postponed the termination effective November 19, 2025; the government appealed and moved to stay that order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the stay on February 17, 2026, concluding that the government had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
Questions
Did the Trump administration lawfully end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian nationals?
Conclusions
-
The TPS statute’s judicial review bar blocks all non-constitutional challenges to the Secretary of Homeland Security's decisions to grant, extend, or terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS). A four-justice plurality further held that an equal protection claim alleging racial motivation behind Haiti’s TPS termination is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 6-3 majority opinion, with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joining all portions except the equal protection analysis.
The TPS statute states 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 word “determination” in ordinary usage means either a specific decision or the entire process of arriving at one. Under either reading, the bar covers everything the challengers disputed—including claims that the Secretary failed to properly consult other government agencies before terminating TPS for Syria and Haiti. The phrase “with respect to” broadens the bar further, sweeping in all matters related to a TPS decision, not just the final call itself. Under established administrative law principles, an agency’s preliminary steps merge into its final action; if that final action is unreviewable, the steps leading to it are unreviewable too, preventing challengers from evading the bar through creative legal arguments.
On the equal protection claim specific to Haiti—where plaintiffs alleged the termination was driven by anti-Black racial animus—the plurality assumed without deciding that the strictest applicable standard applied: whether race was any motivating factor at all in the decision. Even under that generous test, the claim falls short. None of the cited statements by the President or the Secretary expressly invoked race; all expressed views that can rest on race-neutral grounds, such as opposition to immigration or to the TPS program as historically implemented. More decisively, the plaintiffs themselves supplied the most powerful rebuttal to their own claim: they argued the Secretary made a “preordained decision” to end TPS for every country, terminating all 13 designations that came up for renewal. That blanket policy, applied across a racially diverse group of nations spanning four continents, provides a strong race-neutral explanation for Haiti’s termination.
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, arguing that the judicial review bar also blocks the constitutional equal protection claim because Congress may strip federal courts of jurisdiction over any type of claim, and separately arguing that non-citizens have no equal protection rights against the federal government because the Equal Protection Clause applies only to states.
Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that the judicial review bar covers only the Secretary’s final “determination” on country conditions—not the distinct procedural steps Congress required before reaching that determination—and that the President’s own statements about Haitians, steeped in racial stereotypes the majority declined even to reprint, clearly established race as at least one motivating factor in the Haiti TPS termination.
From the Courthouse Steps: Mullin v. Doe
In Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration,...
From the Courthouse Steps: Mullin v. Doe
In Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration,...
