Supreme Court Hears Arguments on TPS for Haitians and Syrians
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments regarding the Trump administration’s move to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants from Haiti and Syria.
Originally, TPS was established under a 1990 law during the Obama administration, allowing certain immigrants to qualify if they come from countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary situations.
Haiti received this status for 18 months following the devastating earthquake in 2010 that resulted in a huge loss of life. Similarly, TPS was granted to Syrians in 2012 due to worsening conditions, as noted by then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who cited the dire situation in the country. A publication tracking Supreme Court news pointed to the severe oppression under former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, who was ousted in 2024 amid civil unrest.
Although the TPS designation was meant to be temporary, it extended over a decade, with a previous DHS Secretary announcing an end in 2025. This was later blocked by a federal court.
In court, U.S. Attorney General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that the judiciary lacks authority to review decisions made by the current DHS Secretary regarding TPS. He stated that the statute involved does not allow for judicial review of these decisions.
“That clause means exactly what it says,” Sauer explained, emphasizing the broad implications of the statutory language. “This provision prevents judicial scrutiny of the Secretary’s final decisions on designations and any prior steps leading to those outcomes.”
On the other side, attorney Jeffrey Pipoli, representing Haitian nationals, denounced the government’s review process as insincere. He claimed internal documents suggested that the decision to end TPS was predetermined rather than based on a genuine assessment.
“The termination of Haiti’s TPS was not based on mandatory reviews but was instead a preordained result due to the president’s insistence on ending TPS for Haiti no matter what,” Pipoli argued.
The court’s liberal justices expressed doubt about the idea that the judiciary should not review how the administration handled the termination of TPS. They also raised concerns that the decision was influenced by racial bias and was unconstitutional.
Justice Sotomayor mentioned: “At one time, the president referred to Haiti in derogatory terms, expressing a preference for immigrants from nations like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. It raises the question of potential discrimination in this matter.”
However, Sauer contended that the president’s comments were not racially motivated but aimed at discussing crime, poverty, and drug trafficking issues.
A ruling from the court is anticipated by late June or early July.
