The Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration is not required to follow certain procedural rules when terminating the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, which allows foreign nationals from countries facing crises to temporarily reside in the United States. The decision, handed down along party lines, permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to proceed with deportations without adhering to established procedural requirements.
TPS is granted to noncitizens present in the U.S. during periods of armed conflict, natural disaster, or other catastrophes that make their home country unsafe. While the status is intended to be temporary, DHS periodically reviews countries designated for TPS and removes them when conditions stabilize. Individuals with TPS are also permitted to work in the U.S. legally.
The Trump administration has expressed skepticism toward the TPS program, removing designations for all 13 countries reviewed during its tenure. President Donald Trump also issued an executive order aimed at limiting the scope and duration of TPS designations.
The Mullin v. Doe Case
The Supreme Court case, Mullin v. Doe, specifically addressed the Trump administration's decisions to end TPS for nationals of Syria and Haiti. Syrians had TPS due to ongoing civil war, while Haitians were granted the status following a severe earthquake and the assassination of their president, which left the country without a stable government. The ruling could affect as many as 300,000 Haitians alone, in addition to Syrians and others.
The central legal question was whether the term "determination" in federal law, which states there is no judicial review of DHS determinations regarding TPS designation or termination, applied only to the final decision to end TPS or also to the procedural steps leading to that decision. Plaintiffs argued that DHS failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements, such as adequately consulting with the State Department, before terminating TPS for Syrians and Haitians.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, referenced previous Court holdings, including McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center (1991), which suggested that "determination" refers to a "single act" and does not encompass the procedures used to reach a decision. However, the majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, asserted that DHS's failure to follow procedure was so integral to its ultimate decision that courts could not review such procedural errors.
Claims of Racial Motivation
Justice Kagan's dissent also raised concerns about whether the decision to terminate TPS for Haitians was unconstitutionally motivated by racism. She cited numerous statements made by Donald Trump that contained racial stereotypes. However, the majority opinion countered this by noting that the Trump administration terminated TPS designations for all countries reviewed, including nations in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South America, and the Caribbean, not just Haiti. This suggests, according to the majority, that the policy was applied uniformly across various nationalities, despite Trump's personal remarks.
While the Supreme Court's decision may allow the DHS to terminate TPS designations more swiftly, the ruling primarily addressed procedural compliance. Had the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, it might have provided them with additional months of safety while DHS followed the correct procedures. However, the underlying legality of ending TPS for these countries, absent procedural review, remains a possibility under federal law.