Supreme Court Clears the Way to End TPS for Haiti and Syria

On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major Temporary Protected Status (TPS) decision. In Mullin v. Doe — decided together with the Haitian case, Trump v. Miot — the Court held that the TPS statute generally bars courts from reviewing the government's decision to terminate a country's TPS designation, and that the Haitian plaintiffs' race‑discrimination claim was unlikely to succeed. The practical effect: the terminations of TPS for Syria and Haiti are no longer paused while the litigation continues. Here is a plain‑English explainer.

What TPS is

Congress created Temporary Protected Status in 1990 to give short‑term humanitarian protection — and work authorization — to people who cannot safely return to a home country facing armed conflict, disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. Syria was designated in 2012; Haiti was designated in 2010 after its earthquake. As the Court noted, although TPS is “temporary,” designations have in practice often lasted many years.

What was being challenged

In 2025, the Secretary of Homeland Security moved to terminate TPS for Syria and for Haiti. Syrian nationals sued in New York and Haitian nationals sued in Washington, D.C., arguing the terminations were unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — and, for Haiti, that the decision was motivated by race in violation of equal protection. Lower courts had granted interim relief pausing the terminations, and the government asked the Supreme Court to step in.

What the Court held

Writing for a six‑Justice majority, Justice Alito held two things:

• Courts generally cannot review TPS terminations. The TPS statute (8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A)) says there is “no judicial review of any determination” of the Secretary about the “designation, or termination or extension” of a country's status. The Court read that bar broadly to cover the plaintiffs' non‑constitutional (APA‑type) claims.
• The equal‑protection claim was unlikely to succeed. Even assuming heightened scrutiny applied, the Court concluded the Haitian plaintiffs were unlikely to show that race was a motivating factor in the termination.

The Court reversed the lower courts and remanded. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

What this means in practical terms

For people with TPS from Haiti or Syria, the decision removes the court orders that had been pausing the terminations, so the government can move forward with ending those designations. It does not, by itself, decide any individual's case, and it does not eliminate other forms of immigration relief a person might separately qualify for. Work‑authorization end dates, timelines, and options vary by person and can change quickly.

If you or a family member has TPS

This is exactly the moment for a case‑specific review. Some TPS holders may have other paths — for example, family‑based petitions, asylum or other humanitarian protection, or other relief — that are worth evaluating now rather than later. Because deadlines and eligibility turn on individual facts, and because this area is moving quickly, the most useful step is a conversation with an immigration attorney about your specific situation.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It summarizes a recent legal development; how the law applies depends on the specific facts of each case. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your situation. This website is attorney advertising.