The Mechanics of the Supreme Court: How the 6-3 Ruling Reshapes the Status of 350,000 Haitian TPS Holders

On a bright June morning in Washington, D.C., the legal foundation supporting 350,000 Haitian and 6,000 Syrian immigrants shifted fundamentally. When the Supreme Court handed down its 6-3 decision in Mullin v. Doe on June 25, 2026, it resolved months of anxious waiting for families and employers alike, delivering a sweeping rejection of lawsuits that had kept Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections in place during ongoing litigation.[1][8]

Authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the majority opinion concluded that the 1990 statute creating TPS explicitly bars federal courts from reviewing the Department of Homeland Security's decisions to designate, extend, or terminate a country's status. The Court held that the statutory provision preventing "judicial review of any determination" is clear and broadly applicable to both the final decision and the procedural steps leading up to it.[5][8]

This procedural interpretation effectively dissolved the lower-court injunctions that had blocked the Trump administration's termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria. By holding that these decisions are largely unreviewable, the Supreme Court removed the primary legal backstop on which advocates and providers had relied to protect TPS holders across the board.[3][6]

The immediate mechanism of the ruling, however, does not deport anyone overnight. Instead, it triggers a complex and highly structured administrative wind-down. Because of the Supreme Court's procedures, the decision did not formally go into effect until 32 days after the ruling was issued, allowing a brief window for the cases to be remanded to the district courts for implementing orders.[1][3]

During this transitional period, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued temporary extensions for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). Initially, the agency directed employers to use July 1 as the expiration date, but later issued updated guidance extending work authorization for Haitian and Syrian TPS beneficiaries to July 10, and eventually late July, to align with the court's timeline.[4][7]

For employers, the mechanics of compliance are sudden and strict. If you manage a company in a sector heavily reliant on TPS workers—such as healthcare, hospitality, or construction—you must immediately audit your Form I-9 records to identify any employee working on a Haitian or Syrian TPS-based document.[2][4]

Keeping an employee on the payroll past the expiration of their work authorization violates federal law. Employers face civil fines, problems during I-9 audits, and potential jeopardy to federal contracts if they fail to reverify affected workers before their authorization lapses, even if the oversight is a simple administrative error.[4]

The stakes are particularly high in the disability services and long-term care sectors. Haitian immigrants represent a significant portion of the direct care workforce, and some disability service providers are preparing to lose experienced staff at a time when they already face severe funding challenges and chronic worker shortages.[2]

Beyond the procedural questions, the Supreme Court also addressed a constitutional claim brought by the Haitian plaintiffs in the consolidated case, Trump v. Miot. The plaintiffs argued that the termination of Haiti's TPS designation violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee because it was motivated by racial animus.[5][8]

The majority opinion rejected this argument, finding that derogatory statements made by the President and the former DHS Secretary were insufficient to prove that racism was the motivating factor behind the specific policy decision. The Court concluded that the equal protection claim was unlikely to succeed, further closing the door on judicial intervention.[5][8]

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the majority. The dissenting justices highlighted the profound human and economic stakes of removing protections from long-established communities and questioned the broad preclusion of judicial review over executive actions.[2][8]

The mechanics of what happens next for the immigrants themselves are narrow and fraught with uncertainty. When the clock runs out on TPS, individuals revert to the exact immigration status they held before receiving the temporary protection. For the vast majority who have no other lawful status, this means stepping into the shadows as undocumented residents, potentially subject to removal proceedings.[1]

If an individual has a pending asylum application, they will be allowed to wait in the United States for a decision. However, with a backlog of over 3.2 million immigration court cases, the timeline for these adjudications stretches years into the future, leaving applicants in a prolonged state of legal limbo.[1]

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has publicly suggested that individuals could apply for alternative visas or accept government assistance to depart the country. However, legal experts caution that the pathways to permanent residency are incredibly narrow and practically unavailable to the overwhelming majority of TPS holders.[1][3]

The broader structural implication of Mullin v. Doe extends far beyond Haiti and Syria. By eliminating judicial review of TPS determinations, the Court has insulated the executive branch's authority over the program, signaling that the administration could terminate TPS for other countries in the future without facing significant legal hurdles.[5][6]

This precedent will likely accelerate the resolution of pending lawsuits challenging the termination of TPS for other nations, including Venezuela, El Salvador, and Honduras. Hundreds of thousands of additional TPS recipients may soon see their work authorization and legal status end as lower courts apply the Supreme Court's ruling to their cases.[5][7]

Ultimately, the decision shifts the battleground from the federal judiciary to Congress. With the legal avenues exhausted, legislative proposals to create a permanent pathway for TPS holders—such as the bipartisan bills previously introduced in the House and Senate—remain the most viable, yet politically challenging, remaining option.[3][6]