Among President Donald Trump's main arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court defending his moves to rescind humanitarian protections that shield hundreds of thousands of immigrants from deportation, one stands out: Courts cannot review his administration's decisions in this area.
Federal judges in New York and Washington, D.C., barred Trump's administration from stripping away a legal status that protects more than 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians from deportation. Citing widespread violence, crime, terrorism and kidnapping, the administration warns against traveling to either of these countries.
The justices are set to hear arguments Wednesday in the administration's appeals of those rulings as it defends former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's actions to terminate Temporary Protected Status for people from Haiti and Syria.
Revoking humanitarian protections is part of Trump's broader crackdown on legal and illegal immigration since he returned to office in January 2025.
People are also reading…
The Supreme Court did not act on the administration's request to immediately end TPS protections for Haitians and Syrians while the case plays out, but last year let the administration end TPS for Venezuelans.
Wars and disasters
Under the Immigration Act of 1990, a TPS designation allows migrants from countries stricken by war, natural disasters or other catastrophes to live and work in the United States while it is unsafe for them to return to their home countries.
The legal dispute could have wide implications, affecting 1.3 million immigrants from all 17 TPS-designated countries, according to the plaintiffs. Trump's administration sought to rescind the protections for 13 of those countries so far.
Lower courts ruled against the administration's TPS terminations, finding officials failed to follow protocols required under the Immigration Act to assess conditions in a country before revoking its designation.
Trump's Justice Department disputes those points, asserting that courts cannot second-guess its TPS decisions.
"The TPS statute unambiguously bars judicial review of claims that attack the secretary's TPS determinations, including the procedures and analysis underlying those determinations," the department said in a filing.
It is among matters in which Trump asserted an expansive view of presidential powers and a limited view of judicial purview.
Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer for the Syrian TPS recipients who challenged the administration's actions, said "a huge amount is at stake" in the legal fight. "If the government is correct, then they can terminate TPS without conducting any country conditions review at all ā they can do it for reasons that are completely arbitrary."
The administration's actions overall do not reflect a federal agency's reasoned decision-making but rather a concerted effort to end TPS entirely, Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA School of Law's Center for Immigration Law and Policy, told reporters.
"This really is about a war on this congressional statute," he added.
False claims
Trump also sought toĀ rescind TPS protections during his first term but failed. During his reelection campaign, he vowed to try again. For instance, he pledged to revoke TPS for Haitian immigrants after making false and derogatory claims that they ate household pets in Ohio.
Noem, a Trump appointee, moved quickly to act on TPS designations for countries, including on Feb. 1, 2025, to end the protection for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans.
TPS recipients, some of whom have been in the United States for years and could face separation from jobs and families, said it is cruel to consider sending them back to countries where they risk danger and even death.
"Temporary Protected Status is, by definition, temporary. It was never intended to be a pathway to permanent status or legal residency, no matter how badly left-wing organizations want it to be," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said.
Democratic President Barack Obama gave Haitians ā TPS in 2010 after a devastating earthquake, and Syrians in 2012 after the country plunged into a civil war. The U.S. government extended the statuses as crisesĀ continued in those countries.
Noem moved to revoke TPS for Syria in September and for Haiti in November, stating the designations were contrary to U.S. national interest in part due to difficulties screening and vetting migrants from those countries. Her TPS decisions were not at issue when Trump fired her in March.
Syrian and Haitian TPS holders filed class-action lawsuits alleging the termination notices were mere pretext for the administration's plan to end existing designations. The lawsuit said Noem did not comply with the TPS law's procedural mandate to consult other federal agencies concerning conditions inside a country before revoking its protective status.
The plaintiffs said the consultation consisted of a State Department official replying to a Homeland Security Department official's email to say there were "no foreign policy concerns" with ending the designations.
Judicial review
Leaning on a section of the 1990 statute that states there is no judicial review "of any determination" with respect to giving, extending or ending TPS, Trump's Justice Department said that includes not only final outcomes but also the decisions behind them. In a written filing, it warned against "installing district courts as the ultimate foreign-policy superintendents of temporary status."
The argument that courts have no role in reviewing the legality of certain presidential administration actions is a familiar one for Trump. His administration made it in numerous challenges to his policies, part of a broader push against the power of judges, according to a Reuters analysis.
The plaintiffs said the administration's position would insulate even unlawful actions. They contend the statute lets courts scrutinize the compliance of federal officials with statutory procedural requirements.
They also cited a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that blocked Trump from adding a citizenship question to the national census, a move opponents called a Republican effort to deter immigrants from taking part in the decadal population count. The court decided administration officials' stated reasons for adding the question were pretextual and contrived.
In the Haiti case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes decided the administration's action likely was motivated in part by "racial animus," violating the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment promise of equal protection under the law.
Reyes referenced statements by Trump and Noem, including the former homeland security secretary's social media post labeling immigrants killers and leeches.
"Plaintiffs ācharge that Secretary Noem preordained ā her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely," Reyes wrote.
The Justice Department disputes any racial discrimination. It argued no statement by Trump or Noem mentions race. It said the Supreme Court should apply its precedents offering deference to the administration on immigration, foreign policy and national security matters.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June.
