Protesters chant and hold signs in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on April 29, 2026 in Washington, DC The court heard arguments against the Department of Homeland Security’s revocation of fleeting protected status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria. (Photo by Tom Brenner/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised Wednesday to uphold the Trump administration’s efforts to end fleeting legal protections for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.
The decision could also impact several other lawsuits related to so-called “Temporary Protected Status” that are pending in lower courts. The lawsuits challenge the Trump administration’s procedures to end federal protections, which have greatly increased the risk of deportation for more than a million immigrants.
So far, the Trump administration has halted TPS targets for 13 of 17 countries that were lively at the start of President Donald Trump’s term.
Speaking on behalf of the Trump administration, U.S. Attorney General D. John Sauer said that by law, federal courts cannot review the executive branch’s decision to terminate or extend a TPS designation.
“They call into question exactly the kinds of foreign policy judgments that are traditionally entrusted to politicians,” Sauer said of TPS recipients applying to remain in the United States.
But two lawyers, Ahilan Arulanantham, who represents Syrians, and Geoffrey Pipoly, who represents Haitians, argued that their clients could challenge the lack of due process shown by then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in repealing those TPS designations.
This also includes not checking the country conditions before making a decision, the lawyers said.
Most of the questions came from the three liberal justices who criticized Sauer and pressured him over Trump’s racist comments denigrating Haitians.
The conservative justices, who command a 6-3 majority, asked Sauer only a handful of questions and appeared skeptical of Arulanantham and Pipoly’s argument, signaling that they may already agree with the Trump administration’s position that courts cannot review TPS terminations.
A decision is not expected until June or early July. Both cases would be referred back to the lower courts to continue adjudication on the merits.
However, if the Supreme Court agrees with the Trump administration, TPS holders from Haiti and Syria could be deported.
The effort to end the TPS designation is part of President Donald Trump’s broader effort Efforts to restrict immigration and strip people of legal statusby creating thousands of up-to-date illegal immigrants to subject them to his mass deportation operation.
This is how TPS works
TPS is a humanitarian program created by Congress in 1990 to provide fleeting protection for nationals returning from countries deemed too unsafe to return due to violence, disasters, or other extreme circumstances.
TPS holders must go through verification to obtain a work permit and legal protection. Each extension lasts between six and twelve to 18 months.
These decisions are made by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who typically consults with the State Department to assess conditions in the country and determine whether status needs to be renewed. Decisions would depend on whether conditions for a migrant’s return are still unsafe.
Sauer argued that courts cannot review this final decision, including the procedural decisions that preceded it.
Arulanantham claimed that this position was a “double-edged sword”. A different administration could easily come in and a up-to-date DHS secretary could theoretically apply TPS to grant legal status to immigrants in the country unlawfully, and that decision would not be subject to judicial review, Arulanantham said.
The TPS holders before the Supreme Court argue that Noem did not consult with relevant authorities, such as the State Department, before deciding to end the TPS designation. They say she didn’t follow proper procedure – but they don’t dispute that a decision to terminate a country can be reviewed.
Regarding Syria, Arulanantham said: If Noem had reviewed the State Department report advising people not to travel to the country due to armed conflict and still decided against renewing protection, that decision would not be reviewable.
“What can be verified is whether she actually asks something and receives information about the conditions in the country,” he said.
Sauer said the legal argument was “baseless” because the TPS “does not regulate in detail the extent of consultation with other authorities.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett pressed Arulanantham on why a challenge to the review of how a TPS termination is terminated even matters.
“If it’s just some kind of box-checking exercise, I mean, why would Congress allow a review of the procedural aspect when in reality everyone cares about much more, the substance?” she asked.
Arulanantham said this is “because Congress… and the millions of people living with TPS have some trust in the government and believe that decisions will be better if there are consultations.”
He said: “Our view is that even if it comes across like a check-in exercise, people at least know that someone has spoken to someone else.”
Trump’s “racial animus” was cited
Pipoly argued that ending TPS for Haiti was based on racial hostility toward Haitians, pointing to the president’s own words calling the Caribbean island a “shithole.”
“The real reason for the termination is the president’s racial hostility toward non-white immigrants and sheer antipathy toward Haitians in particular,” he said.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor questioned Sauer about these comments from Trump.
“We have a president who once said, I quote him, that Haiti was a ‘filthy, filthy, disgusting country,’ and he complained that the United States was taking in people from such countries instead of people from Norway, Sweden or Denmark,” she said. “I don’t understand why this one statement isn’t a prime example that … a discriminatory purpose may have played a role in this decision.”
Sauer argued that none of these statements “mentioned or referred to race” and that the president was instead referring to “problems like crime, poverty, welfare dependency.”
In the lower court blocking the Trump administration from ending TPS for Haiti, federal judge Ana Reyes found that the administration’s decision to end humanitarian protections contained racial animosity.
This isn’t the first time Trump has tried to end TPS for Haiti – he did so in his first term in 2018, but was blocked by the courts.
Haitian workers in the USA
The day before Wednesday’s hearing, a handful of Democratic lawmakers gathered with home care advocates outside the U.S. Capitol to highlight the importance of TPS workers. More than 20,000 Haitians work in healthcare, According to the immigration advocacy group FWD.us.
“Right now, more than a million people are at risk of being forced from their homes, separated from their families and having their lives destroyed because of Trump’s cruel and unlawful attempt to end their temporary protected status,” Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts said during Tuesday’s press conference.
Pressley said thousands of TPS holders serve as imperative workers, including a recipient from Haiti who cared for the congresswoman’s mother, who died of cancer.
“It was Haitian nurses who prayed for my mother, who sang songs for my mother, who lovingly oiled her scalp and braided her hair,” Pressley said. “Everyone who calls this country home benefits from TPS and may be harmed by this termination.”
Pressley has led the bipartisan push in the House of Representatives to pass a measure that would extend Haiti’s TPS for up to three years.
Ten Republicans, including one independent who aligns with the GOP, joined Democrats approved the bill earlier this month.
While the bill passed the House of Representatives, it would need 60 votes in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. Furthermore, if Congress manages to pass the bill, it would likely be vetoed by Trump.
“We are asking the Supreme Court to uphold the law, save lives and protect our communities,” Pressley said. “Sending vulnerable families to countries like Haiti, Venezuela and Syria that are suffering horrific humanitarian crises is irresponsible, shameful, unlawful and avoidable.”
