The Supreme Court heard 90-plus minutes of argument over whether courts can review TPS terminations affecting 350,000 Haitians and 7,000 Syrians, with a ruling due by summer.
The Supreme Court heard more than 90 minutes of oral argument on April 29 in consolidated cases challenging the Trump administration's termination of Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350,000 Haitian nationals and 7,000 Syrian nationals [1]. The central dispute turns on whether federal courts retain any authority to review the executive branch's compliance with the procedural requirements Congress attached to TPS designation and termination decisions [1]. A ruling is expected before the end of the term this summer [1].
The cases, consolidated under the caption *Mullin v. Doe*, arise from lower court rulings that blocked the administration's TPS terminations on procedural grounds [2]. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the government's position before the Court, contending that TPS designation decisions are committed entirely to agency discretion and therefore unreviewable by courts [1]. Ahilan Arulanantham of the ACLU of Northern California argued for the respondents, defending the lower courts' authority to examine whether the Department of Homeland Security followed the steps Congress prescribed [1]. The cases originated in federal district court and reached the Supreme Court following appellate review [2].
The argument exposed a pronounced divide along ideological lines. Conservative justices expressed skepticism that courts should second-guess the executive on a matter Congress designated as a discretionary national-security and foreign-policy function [2]. Liberal justices, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, pressed Solicitor General Sauer on the structural logic of his position, questioning why Congress would impose procedural requirements on TPS decisions if no court could ever enforce them [1]. Justice Samuel Alito probed the scope of judicial review from the opposite direction, suggesting that broad judicial oversight could impermissibly constrain executive immigration authority [2].
The stakes extend well beyond the Haitian and Syrian TPS holders directly at issue. The TPS program currently provides protected status to approximately 1.4 million people from multiple countries [1]. A ruling that forecloses judicial review of termination decisions would leave every TPS holder without a judicial check on whether the executive followed the law Congress enacted, regardless of the procedural record [1]. A ruling preserving review would reaffirm a structural limit on executive discretion in immigration enforcement [2].
The Court is expected to issue its decision by late June or early July 2026 [1].