On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mullin v. Doe, permitting the Government to effectively disqualify nationals from Syria and Haiti from Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
TPS is an immigration benefit for noncitizens fleeing war, natural disasters, and other conditions the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has determined would temporarily prevent them from returning to their home countries safely. That determination is called a “TPS designation.”
To be eligible for TPS, a noncitizen must, among other things, have been residing in the United States at the time of the most recent TPS designation for his home country. TPS holders are protected from deportation while they have TPS. They can obtain permits to work lawfully in the United States. As of March 2025, the United States has about 1.3 million TPS holders.
TPS is temporary. Federal law requires DHS to periodically review whether a country’s TPS designation remains valid. If DHS consults with other appropriate agencies such as the State Department and determines that a country’s TPS designation is no longer valid, DHS can terminate that TPS designation. If DHS terminates it, that country’s nationals cannot apply for TPS or renew their TPS.
Doe concerned two lawsuits challenging DHS’ determinations that Syria’s and Haiti’s TPS designations should be terminated. The plaintiffs argued that DHS’ determinations were unlawful because: (1) DHS did not comply with the process required by federal law; and, (2) DHS’ determinations, particularly regarding Haiti, violated the Constitution by being motivated by racism toward non-white people.
Before the lower courts, the plaintiffs had successfully argued that the terminations were unlawful. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments.
First, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law forbade challenges to a “determination” by DHS on a TPS designation, outside of claims that DHS’ determination was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs countered that federal law did not prevent them from challenging how DHS made its determination. For example, the Supreme Court did not assert that the DHS complied with the process for terminating TPS designations. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that a “determination” involves DHS’ ultimate decision and how DHS reached it.
Second, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs were unlikely to show that racism motivated DHS’ termination of Haiti’s TPS designation. The plaintiffs had cited, among others, comments from President Donald Trump accusing Haitian people of coming from a “filthy, dirty, disgusting” country, of eating people’s pets, of “probably hav[ing] AIDS,” and of “poisoning the blood” of the United States. The Supreme Court considered the comments not “overtly racial” because people “without racial bias” could advocate for “tighter immigration restrictions” and articulate “harshly unfavorable description[s] of living conditions” in Haiti and other countries.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court has permitted the Government to terminate TPS eligibility for thousands of noncitizens who cannot return safely to their home countries. While one can still challenge the terminations on constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court has set a high bar for such challenges.
If you are unsure how this ruling might impact your case, the experienced attorneys at Murray Osorio PLLC are here to help. Call (800) 929-7142 or contact us online to schedule a consultation today.