The Supreme Court heard argument April 29 on whether DHS's termination of TPS for 356,000 Haitian and Syrian nationals is lawful and judicially reviewable.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 29 in *Mullin v. Doe*, a consolidated case testing whether the Department of Homeland Security's termination of Temporary Protected Status for more than 356,000 Haitian and Syrian nationals was lawful and subject to judicial review [1]. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued on behalf of the Trump administration, defending DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's decision to end the designations [1]. The Court has kept TPS protections in place through a stay while it considers the merits [1].
The case arrived at the Supreme Court after lower courts blocked Noem's terminations, with challengers arguing the decisions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and were infected by discriminatory motive [1]. The consolidated posture reflects parallel challenges brought on behalf of Haitian and Syrian nationals whose status was revoked by DHS action [1]. Argument on April 29 marked the final day of the Court's current oral argument calendar [1].
The core legal questions are whether the TPS termination decisions are subject to APA review and, if so, whether discriminatory purpose taints them sufficiently to render them unlawful. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed Sauer on public statements attributed to President Trump characterizing Haiti in derogatory terms, probing whether those remarks bore on the lawfulness of the agency action [1]. Sauer's defense centered on executive discretion over humanitarian immigration designations and the argument that TPS terminations fall outside the scope of reviewable final agency action [1].
The stakes are substantial. A ruling for the government on reviewability would place TPS terminations, and potentially a range of other humanitarian immigration decisions, beyond meaningful judicial oversight. More than 350,000 individuals currently rely on TPS status for work authorization and protection from removal [1]. A ruling against the government would preserve the lower courts' authority to scrutinize executive immigration actions for statutory and constitutional defects.
A decision is expected before the Court's term ends, typically in late June or early July. If the Court reverses the injunction below and upholds the terminations, affected nationals would face removal proceedings absent congressional or executive intervention. If the Court affirms reviewability and finds the terminations unlawful, the administration would need to restart the designation process under a valid legal framework.