The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in the legal battle over the Trump administration’s 2017 and 2018 decisions to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants from several nations, including Haiti and Syria. By denying a petition to hear the case, the court left in place lower court rulings that allowed the government to move forward with the policy, according to court records.
Why the Supreme Court declined the case
The Supreme Court’s decision to deny the petition in Ramos v. Mayorkas effectively ended the legal challenge against the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) termination of TPS designations. The plaintiffs argued that the administration’s actions were motivated by discriminatory intent and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the federal government maintained that the initial conditions prompting the TPS designations—such as natural disasters or armed conflict—had sufficiently improved to warrant the programs’ expiration. Because the court denied the petition, it did not issue a ruling on the merits of the underlying claims, leaving the government’s authority to terminate TPS programs intact under the current statutory framework.
How this affects TPS holders
TPS is a temporary immigration benefit provided to eligible nationals of countries facing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions. The termination of these programs means that individuals from the affected countries—including Haiti, Syria, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Sudan—lose their protection from deportation and their work authorization.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, the expiration dates for these programs have been subject to various extensions and litigation-related stays over the years. The legal uncertainty surrounding these programs has created significant challenges for long-term residents who have built lives, families, and careers in the United States while under TPS status.
The legal precedent for TPS terminations
The core of the legal dispute centered on whether courts have the authority to review the executive branch’s decision-making process regarding TPS. The government argued that these decisions are discretionary and not subject to judicial review.
- Executive Discretion: The government cited the Immigration and Nationality Act, asserting that the Secretary of Homeland Security has broad authority to designate or terminate TPS based on a periodic review of country conditions.
- Judicial Review: Plaintiffs contended that the termination process was arbitrary and capricious, citing statements from the executive branch that they claimed evidenced racial bias.
By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court did not set a new nationwide precedent on the limits of judicial review for TPS, but it reinforced the status quo, which heavily favors executive authority in matters of immigration status designations.
What happens next for affected populations
For those currently holding TPS, the immediate future depends on subsequent administrative actions by the Department of Homeland Security. Since the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, the Biden administration has utilized its authority to re-designate several of these nations for TPS due to worsening conditions, such as political instability or natural disasters.
Immigration advocacy groups continue to call for a permanent legislative solution, such as a pathway to permanent residency for long-term TPS holders. As of now, the program remains a tool of executive policy, subject to change based on the priorities of the administration in power.