The Supreme Court heard arguments April 29 on TPS terminations for 350,000 Haitians and Syrians, with a ruling that could block judicial review of all 13 pending terminations.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 29 on whether the Trump administration lawfully revoked Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, and whether federal courts retain any authority to review that decision [1]. The argument session fell on the last scheduled argument day of the Court's 2025-26 term, signaling the significance the justices assigned to the consolidated cases [1]. A ruling is expected by late June or early July [2].
The cases, consolidated under the captions *Mullin v. Doe* and *Trump v. Miot*, originated from lower court challenges to the administration's termination procedures and reached the Supreme Court on two distinct questions: whether the TPS statute's text bars all judicial review of termination decisions, and whether the administration followed required procedural steps [1] [2]. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the government, contending the statute's review-preclusion language is categorical and leaves no room for courts to second-guess executive TPS decisions [1]. Ahilan Arulanantham, representing the respondents and affiliated with UCLA School of Law and the International Refugee Assistance Project, countered that courts retain jurisdiction to assess whether the administration complied with the statute's own procedural mandates [1].
The bench divided along recognizable lines, though not entirely predictable ones. Several conservative justices appeared receptive to the government's preclusion argument [1]. Chief Justice John Roberts, however, pressed Sauer on the breadth of the government's position, expressing skepticism that Congress intended to foreclose all judicial review of procedural compliance [1] [2]. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also engaged the procedural question with evident interest [1]. Liberal justices raised the question of whether evidence of racial animus in the decision-making process could or should factor into the analysis, a line of inquiry the government resisted [1] [2].
The stakes extend well beyond the two nationalities at issue in these cases. The administration has initiated terminations for 13 TPS designations in total, covering approximately 1.3 million people across multiple nationalities [2]. A ruling that the statute precludes judicial review would, in effect, shield all pending and future terminations from court scrutiny, removing a significant check on executive immigration authority for this administration and those that follow [1] [2]. Advocacy organizations including the ACLU have intervened or filed supporting briefs in the lower court proceedings [1].
The Court's decision, expected before the term closes, will determine whether federal judges retain any role in policing the procedural boundaries of one of the most consequential immigration enforcement mechanisms currently in use [2].