⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Supreme Court considers whether courts may review how the Secretary of Homeland Security ended Temporary Protected Status for Syria and Haiti. TPS lets eligible nationals of countries facing war, disaster, or other extraordinary conditions live and work temporarily in the United States. After former Secretary Kristi Noem terminated both designations, Syrian and Haitian TPS holders won orders keeping the protections in place during litigation. They say the Secretary failed required consultation, used improper criteria, and, in the Haiti case, acted with racial animus. The government says the statute bars review of any determination concerning designation, extension, or termination, including every step leading to the decision. The Syrian respondents say the bar protects only the substantive country-conditions judgment, not mandatory procedures. The Haitian respondents add that their constitutional claim remains reviewable. After this argument, the Supreme Court reversed by six to three. It held that the review bar forecloses all nonconstitutional claims and that the Haitian plaintiffs were unlikely, at this stage, to show that race motivated the termination. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

Mullin v. Doe (No. 25-1083) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 29, 2026.