Blue Brief 2025-2026

they argued that Secretary Mullin had failed to consult properly with other government agencies, ignored evidence of continuing dangers in Syria and Haiti, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act . Haitian plaintiffs also alleged that the termination of Haiti’s designation was motivated by racial animus in violation of the Equal Protection Clause . Federal judges in New York and Washington, D.C. , ruled in favor of the Syrian and Haitian plaintiffs, and the cases eventually reached the Supreme Court.

decision to terminate TPS, but also procedural claims concerning how those decisions were reached. The Court also rejected the equal protection claims, concluding that President Trump’s repeated statements opposing the TPS program as a whole supplied a race-neutral explanation for the decision to terminate Haiti’s designation, notwithstanding the President’s numerous disparaging remarks concerning Haitian immigrants. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, vigorously dissented , arguing that the majority interpreted the bar on judicial review far too broadly, effectively insulating executive actions from meaningful judicial scrutiny. She wrote that the Syrian and Haitian TPS beneficiaries “ask for only one thing: that they may stay in this country while they continue to litigate their claims. … [T]hey are entitled to that relief, and should not instead be consigned to devastating, and indeed life-threatening, injury.” For the dissent, the majority’s reading of the statute effectively closed the courthouse doors to individuals facing potentially life-threatening consequences. The decision carries consequences extending far beyond Haiti and Syria. It represents another significant victory for executive authority in immigration matters and reinforces the Court’s growing willingness to limit the role of the federal judiciary in reviewing immigration decisions. The ruling underscores the inherently precarious nature of TPS itself. Although many recipients have lived and worked in the United States for years or even decades, the Court’s decision makes clear that TPS remains, at its core, a temporary form of relief that can be terminated with little opportunity for judicial intervention.

The decision carries consequences extending far beyond Haiti and Syria. It represents another significant victory for executive authority in immigration matters …

Writing for the Court, Justice Alito concluded that Congress had foreclosed judicial review of virtually all nonconstitutional challenges to TPS determinations. The Court relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) , which provides that “[t]here is no judicial review of any determination” regarding the designation, extension, or termination of TPS for a foreign state. The majority interpreted this language broadly, concluding that it bars not only challenges to the ultimate

UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW | Faculty Review of 2025-2026 U.S. Supreme Court Term | Page 6