Supreme Court Rules DHS Decisions on Temporary Protected Status Are Not Subject to Judicial Review

For decades, the executive branch has granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to foreign nationals fleeing disaster or war, allowing them to live and work legally in the United States. But when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) moves to revoke that status, a fundamental structural question emerges: can the federal judiciary intervene to stop the termination if the agency allegedly violates its own procedural rules?

In a 6-3 decision issued in late June 2026, the Supreme Court answered definitively in the negative. In the consolidated cases of Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, the Court ruled that federal law strips lower courts of the jurisdiction to review the DHS Secretary's decisions to designate, extend, or terminate TPS.[1][7]

The ruling clears the way for the administration to proceed with terminating TPS designations for Haiti and Syria, affecting roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. By lifting lower-court injunctions that had frozen the terminations, the decision exposes these populations to deportation and strips them of their employment authorization, fundamentally altering the legal landscape for immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years.[3][8]

Congress established TPS in 1990 as a humanitarian mechanism, granting the DHS Secretary the authority to designate countries experiencing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary conditions. While designed as a short-term relief valve, designations are frequently renewed, allowing beneficiaries to build lives, purchase homes, and establish careers in the United States over decades.[1][8]

The legal dispute began when former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced the termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria. Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing the agency failed to conduct the required interagency reviews and ignored ongoing dangers in those countries. Lower courts initially agreed, issuing injunctions that paused the terminations while the litigation proceeded.[3][6]

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito grounded the decision in the strict text of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The statute explicitly bars "judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state." The Court interpreted this provision as a near-absolute shield against APA challenges, concluding that Congress intended to leave TPS determinations entirely to the executive branch's discretion.[1][7]

The Court did leave a narrow window open for constitutional claims, such as the plaintiffs' argument that the termination of Haiti's TPS was motivated by racial animus in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. However, the majority opinion noted that such claims are unlikely to succeed on the merits, effectively closing the door on the primary legal strategy used by immigration advocates to protect TPS holders.[1][7]

The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the ruling as a restoration of the program's original intent. DHS General Counsel James Percival stated that the decision reaffirms that TPS "was always supposed to be temporary and can be cancelled at the appropriate time," providing the agency with the necessary tools to enforce immigration law without judicial interference.[2]

The sudden vulnerability of hundreds of thousands of legally authorized workers has triggered alarm among employers. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has instructed employers to treat July 10, 2026, as the revised expiration date for certain TPS-related Employment Authorization Documents. Corporate immigration attorneys are advising companies to immediately audit their Form I-9 records and prepare for the loss of affected staff.[4][6]

The workforce implications are particularly acute in the aging services and healthcare sectors. Industry groups note that TPS holders represent a critical segment of the caregiving workforce. The sudden revocation of work authorization for these employees threatens to exacerbate chronic staffing shortages, potentially forcing nursing homes and home health agencies to limit admissions or reduce services.[5]

Beyond Haiti and Syria, the Mullin v. Doe decision fundamentally alters the balance of power over immigration policy. By removing the judiciary as a backstop against procedural violations, the ruling grants the executive branch nearly unchecked authority over the fate of the 1.3 million individuals who currently hold TPS.[3][8]

With the courts largely sidelined, the battle over TPS shifts entirely to the political arena. Immigration advocates are now directing their efforts toward Congress, urging lawmakers to create a permanent legislative pathway to legal residency for long-term TPS holders before their protections expire and mass deportations begin.[8]