Supreme Court Allows End to Protections for Haitian, Syrian Nationals

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday determined the federal government may end immigration protections for Haitian and Syrian nationals. The decision, delivered in a 6-3 vote, reversed lower court orders that had prevented the Trump administration from terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for the two countries.

The high court ruled that the federal law establishing the TPS program generally restricts judicial review of determinations made by the Homeland Security Secretary to end these designations. The court also indicated that Haitian TPS holders would likely not prevail on their claim that the termination of their status violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.

Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion. He stated that the language of the TPS statute, which prohibits judicial review, has a broad and clear meaning. Alito explained that courts cannot review decisions by former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to terminate the TPS designations for Syria and Haiti. He noted that the claims from the challengers in this case involved discrete decisions made by the Secretary, such as consulting the State Department or determining country conditions, all of which formed part of the process leading to the final decision to terminate the designations.

Alito also dismissed the challengers' argument that courts could review procedural violations, stating that the TPS judicial-review bar expressly restricts such review. He further rejected the contention that decisions only part of the ultimate determination could be reviewed, citing inconsistency with the statutory text and general principles of federal agency laws. Alito addressed concerns about potential abuses if courts cannot review the decisions, suggesting Congress has other means to prevent such abuses.

Regarding the equal protection claim from Haitian TPS beneficiaries, Alito acknowledged statements by then-President Donald Trump and Secretary Noem contained "heated language." However, he concluded that none of these statements were overtly racial and that they expressed policy views capable of resting on non-racial grounds.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. He argued that courts lack the authority to review the Haitian TPS beneficiaries' constitutional claim. Thomas asserted the statute made Congress' intent to preclude judicial review clear and contended that noncitizens cannot sue the federal government for violations of their right to equal treatment, as he argued this guarantee applies only to states.

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan offered a narrower reading of the judicial-review bar, arguing it applies only to the Homeland Security Secretary's determination regarding designation, termination, or extension of a foreign state's status. She asserted that courts retain the power to review decisions and actions beyond this “determination,” including procedural steps the Secretary must undertake before making any determination about country conditions.

Kagan stated that the challengers argued the Secretary failed to comply with procedural mandates, specifically regarding consultation with appropriate agencies. She also indicated that race played a role in the decision to terminate TPS for Haiti, citing statements by the President that she described as repellent and racially inflected. Kagan concluded her dissent by stating that the TPS beneficiaries should not be placed on a plane.