WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration may revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants from Haiti and Syria, a decision that could affect more than 1.3 million TPS holders nationwide, including about 147,000 in Texas.
In the majority opinion for Mullin v. Doe, Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Congress granted the president broad discretion over TPS designations, making those decisions generally not subject to judicial review.
“Congress created TPS in 1990 to provide short-term humanitarian relief for aliens who cannot safely return to their home countries,” Alito wrote. “Although designed to afford temporary relief, TPS designations in practice have often lasted for decades.”
Alito noted that Haitian nationals received TPS following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, said the ruling reinforces presidential authority over immigration policy.
“The Supreme Court is signaling that lower courts should not interfere with the executive’s authority,” Blackman said. “When Congress grants a broad discretionary power to grant temporary status, the president should also have the same power to revoke the temporary status.”
Seth Chandler, a constitutional law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the decision could extend beyond Haitians and Syrians.
“It basically streamlines the ability of the Trump administration to revoke TPS status, not just for the Haitians and Syrians who were litigating in the case, but with respect to Hondurans, Nepalis, Afghans and, potentially for Houston, Venezuelans as well,” Chandler said.
In her dissent, Associate Justice Elena Kagan argued that the ruling denied TPS holders due process and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“The evidence [the Haitian plaintiffs] have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print,” Kagan wrote, referring to comments cited by the plaintiffs.
Attorneys representing TPS holders said the decision could affect workers across several industries.
Hussein Elbakri, senior litigation attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project, said TPS recipients include healthcare workers, teachers, construction workers and employees in the food service industry.
The ruling came shortly after the Supreme Court issued another immigration decision allowing the Trump administration to enforce its “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers.
Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival welcomed the ruling.
“The T in TPS stands for TEMPORARY, yet many of these designations became de facto amnesty. This is a win for the rule of law and common sense,” Percival said.
Elbakri criticized the administration’s efforts to end TPS protections, saying many recipients have legal status, have passed background checks and contribute to the workforce.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus also criticized the ruling. In a statement co-signed by Sylvia Garcia, the group said the decision weakens protections for families who have lived and worked legally in the United States.
David Bier of the Cato Institute also criticized the ruling, saying restricting legal immigration pathways could harm businesses and the U.S. economy by reducing the available workforce.