Temporary Protected Status Lawsuits: Mullin v. Doe on Haiti and Syria

In Mullin v. Doe, decided June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal courts cannot review the Department of Homeland Security’s decisions to terminate Temporary Protected Status, clearing the way for the Trump administration to end protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals and undercutting more than a dozen other pending TPS challenges.¹

The decision consolidated a parallel Haitian challenge captioned Trump v. Miot and reversed lower court orders that had kept protections in place. It reads the Immigration and Nationality Act’s judicial-review bar broadly enough to cover not just the final termination but the administrative steps leading to it, closing the main statutory avenue that district courts across the country had been using to block terminations.

What the Court Held

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett. The Court interpreted 8 U.S.C. §1254a(b)(5)(A), which states that “[t]here is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state,” to bar all non-constitutional challenges to TPS terminations.¹

Two moves in the statute did most of the work. The majority read “determination” to cover the entire administrative process behind a termination, including subsidiary steps like interagency consultation on country conditions. It read “with respect to” as having a “broadening effect” that pulls in every matter relating to a termination. Together, those readings meant that Administrative Procedure Act claims alleging procedural failures — inadequate consultation, ignored evidence, preordained outcomes — fell inside the bar rather than outside it.¹

The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the bar reaches only substantive judgments about country conditions. It also rejected the lower courts’ reliance on McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center and Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, cases that had supported carving out broad pattern-and-practice challenges from statutory review bars.¹

The Equal Protection Question

Haitian plaintiffs in the Miot case raised a separate constitutional claim: that the termination was driven by racial animus. The majority did not hold that noncitizens are barred from bringing such claims. Assuming for argument’s sake that heightened scrutiny applied, the Court concluded the claim was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The administration had offered what the majority called a “race-neutral explanation” — a general policy of opposing TPS as previously implemented and terminating designations as they came up for renewal. The Court characterized the “heated language” from executive officials the plaintiffs cited as reflecting policy views rather than being “overtly racial.”²

Justice Thomas concurred separately, arguing that the statutory bar should block constitutional claims as well and that noncitizens cannot sue the federal government for equal protection violations because, in his view, that guarantee binds only the states.³

The Dissent

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. She read the judicial-review bar narrowly, arguing it applies only to the final determination itself and not to the mandatory procedural steps Congress wrote into the statute as prerequisites, such as required agency consultations. On the Haiti equal protection claim, Kagan wrote that it was “plain to see” that race influenced the decision and called President Trump’s statements about Haitians “repellent and racially inflected.” The dissent warned that TPS beneficiaries stripped of protections without judicial review would face “devastating, and indeed life-threatening, injury.”²

Immediate Impact on Haiti and Syria

The ruling reversed lower court injunctions covering roughly 350,000 Haitian and 6,100 Syrian nationals.⁴ It does not take effect the moment it was issued. A lower court must first enter an implementing order, a process estimated to take roughly 32 days, which puts the practical effective date around July 28, 2026.⁵ Once terminations take effect, affected individuals lose both TPS-based employment authorization and protection from removal.²

The Secretary’s stated grounds differed by country. For Syria, the government cited the fall of the Assad regime, the normalization of U.S. relations, revocation of sanctions, and the return of 1.2 million Syrians to the country since 2024. For Haiti, the Secretary acknowledged gang violence but asserted that certain areas were suitable for return and that the ongoing designation conflicted with U.S. national interests, pointing to visa overstay rates and a lack of cooperation from the Haitian government on criminal records.¹

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

Seven Syrian nationals sued in the Southern District of New York, represented by the International Refugee Assistance Project, Muslim Advocates, and others. Five Haitian nationals challenged their termination in the District of Columbia, represented by Just Futures Law and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.⁶ Both groups won interim relief in district court. The government, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, asked the Supreme Court to intervene before the appellate courts ruled.

On March 16, 2026, the Court agreed to hear both cases on an expedited basis, consolidating them as Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot. The caption reflects the confirmation of Markwayne Mullin as DHS Secretary in March 2026, following the dismissal of Kristi Noem.⁷ Oral argument took place on April 29, 2026.⁸

Effect on Other TPS Cases

The ruling’s reach goes well past Haiti and Syria. By putting the entire administrative process leading to a termination inside the judicial-review bar, the Court removed the main statutory theory that lower courts had used to block terminations for other countries. The majority itself noted that district courts had been “consistently rebuffing” the government’s jurisdictional arguments in cases involving Venezuela, Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua.¹

As of late June 2026, district court stays for Burma, Somalia, Ethiopia, and South Sudan technically remained in place, but the government was expected to move to dissolve them based on the Mullin precedent.⁹ Terminations for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua were already in effect after the Ninth Circuit stayed a district court vacatur in February 2026, and Mullin reinforces the government’s position in the pending appeal.¹⁰ Venezuelan terminations, allowed to proceed under a Supreme Court stay in May 2025, remain in effect despite a Ninth Circuit ruling that found them unlawful.¹¹

Constitutional claims are the one avenue the decision did not close. The majority resolved the Haitian plaintiffs’ equal protection argument by finding it unlikely to succeed rather than categorically barred. Cases like CASA v. Noem in the District of Maryland, covering Afghanistan and Cameroon, where discovery into discriminatory motive is already underway, can continue on that theory. The majority’s skeptical treatment of the animus evidence in Miot, however, sets a high bar for anyone taking that route.¹²

What This Means for TPS Holders

More than a million people held TPS in the United States as of March 2025, spread across 17 countries. The largest populations included roughly 352,000 Venezuelans under a 2023 designation, about 253,000 under a 2021 Venezuelan designation, approximately 331,000 Haitians, around 170,000 Salvadorans, and about 101,000 Ukrainians. They live with an estimated 390,000 U.S. citizen children and more than 410,000 U.S. citizen adults.¹³

For those whose designations have been terminated, work permit expiration timelines vary by country and by the specific legal posture of each case, and advocates have reported widespread confusion.⁹ Immigration experts have urged affected individuals to consult qualified legal counsel to explore any alternative pathways they may qualify for, including asylum, other humanitarian relief, or employer-sponsored options. TPS itself does not affect eligibility for those other forms of relief.⁵

For designations still in force, the ruling changes the political math more than the legal math. Roughly 170,000 Salvadoran TPS holders face review in September 2026, and any future termination will face virtually no judicial obstacle on statutory grounds. The same is true for Ukraine’s approximately 101,000 TPS holders and every other remaining designation. By treating termination decisions as functionally unreviewable, the Court has placed the program’s future in the hands of the executive branch and Congress.⁵

The Underlying Program

TPS is a temporary immigration benefit created by Congress in 1990 under Section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for TPS when conditions there prevent nationals from returning safely, including ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances. Designations last between 6 and 18 months, and the Secretary must review conditions at least 60 days before a designation expires to decide whether to extend or terminate it.¹⁴

While TPS is in effect, beneficiaries cannot be deported, can obtain work authorization, and may receive travel documents. It does not lead to permanent residency on its own. The Supreme Court confirmed that limit unanimously in Sanchez v. Mayorkas (2021), holding that a grant of TPS is not an “admission” and therefore does not satisfy the requirements for adjusting to lawful permanent resident status.¹⁵ Mullin now settles a different limit: on the courts.

1
Supreme Court of the United States. Mullin v. Doe, No. 25-1083
2
SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to End Removal Protections for Syrian and Haitian Nationals
3
National Constitution Center. Justices End Protected Status for Syrian, Haitian Immigrants
4
New York Times. Supreme Court Temporary Protected Status
5
KQED. Supreme Court Ruling Leaves TPS Holders Confronting an Uncertain Future
6
Muslim Advocates. Reactions to SCOTUS Arguments on Cases Challenging Termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria
7
Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Senate Confirms Markwayne Mullin as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
8
SCOTUSblog. Court Considers Whether Trump Administration Properly Ended Temporary Protected Status for Haiti
9
Forum Together. Policy Bulletin, June 26, 2026
10
National TPS Alliance. NTPSA v. Noem FAQ: Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua
11
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. National TPS Alliance v. Noem, No. 25-5724
12
Immigration Policy Tracking Project. Reported DHS to End TPS for Afghans
13
FWD.us. Temporary Protected Status Report
14
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 USC 1254a – Temporary Protected Status
15
Supreme Court of the United States. Sanchez v. Mayorkas, No. 20-315