The Supreme Court is set to review the legality of President Donald Trump’s initiative to revoke the temporary legal status of numerous immigrants living and working in the U.S. This case, Marin v. Doe, could have significant implications for many. It centers around the Trump administration’s attempts to end the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for about 350,000 immigrants from Haiti and 7,000 from Syria. TPS allows individuals from specific countries to reside in the U.S. if returning home would pose significant dangers due to disasters, armed conflicts, or other serious circumstances.
Unusually, the Supreme Court agreed last month to evaluate these two consolidated cases through “prejudgment rulings,” essentially considering them before federal appeals courts have made decisions. A ruling might arrive as soon as this summer.
This push to end TPS isn’t new for Trump; his administration has sought to withdraw TPS from 13 countries since January last year. The discussions will likely revolve around the court’s jurisdiction over these designations rather than the specifics of TPS itself.
Because of this, the court’s verdict could impact not only TPS recipients from Haiti and Syria but also affect over 1.3 million immigrants currently in the U.S. under similar humanitarian protections.
Trump contends that TPS designations for Haiti were excessively prolonged by prior administrations, including Joe Biden’s. His lawyers have asked the Supreme Court to unify two lower court cases that currently block attempts to rescind TPS for these nationalities.
Attorney General D. John Sauer urged the court to consider whether the administration can end TPS designations without interagency consultations, citing a provision suggesting there is “no judicial review” for such decisions by the Department of Homeland Security.
Sauer elaborated that the administration believes lawsuits targeting specific TPS designations are not subject to review.
The outcome of this case is critical as it could set a precedent for the extent to which local courts can counteract immigration policies established by the executive branch. Notably, Haitians gained TPS status in 2010 following a catastrophic earthquake that killed over 200,000 people.
This year, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes and District Judge Katherine Polk Feira both halted Trump’s efforts to revoke TPS for Haitian and Syrian nationals. Reyes’s ruling indicated a strong likelihood that then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem acted with bias against non-white immigrants and did not comply with interagency requirements.
The Faila decision echoed these sentiments, asserting that the administration’s attempts to eliminate TPS apply to a wide range of countries.
Trump’s team has accused local courts of exceeding their authority in blocking or delaying TPS rollbacks, particularly in immigration matters. A significant ruling from the Supreme Court is anticipated this summer, which will likely clarify how current and future administrations can address humanitarian immigration programs.
