Introduction
The Supreme Court has sharply limited TPS termination judicial review, holding that federal courts generally cannot second-guess the Department of Homeland Security’s decisions to end Temporary Protected Status designations. In Mullin v. Doe and the companion case Trump v. Miot, decided June 25, 2026, the Court reversed two District Court orders that had postponed the termination of TPS for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The decision affects hundreds of thousands of TPS holders who have relied on the program, in some cases for over a decade, to remain and work lawfully in the United States. For immigration practitioners, employers who rely on TPS-based work authorization, and TPS holders themselves, the ruling reshapes what claims can realistically reach a federal court when a TPS designation ends.
Background and Facts
Procedural History
Syria received its TPS designation in 2012 due to conditions tied to the Assad regime’s repression of civilians. In September 2025, the Secretary of Homeland Security gave notice that Syria’s designation would terminate. Seven Syrian nationals sued in the Southern District of New York under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the District Court postponed the termination under 5 U.S.C. §705. The Second Circuit denied the government’s request for a stay.
Haiti received its TPS designation in 2010 following a devastating earthquake and had been re-designated and extended multiple times since. In November 2025, the Secretary gave notice that Haiti’s designation would terminate. Five Haitian nationals sued in the District Court for the District of Columbia, raising APA claims and a constitutional equal protection claim alleging the termination was motivated by race. The District Court granted interim relief, and a divided D.C. Circuit panel declined to stay that order.
The government sought certiorari before judgment in both cases. The Supreme Court granted review, consolidated the matters, and ultimately reversed both District Court orders.
Operative Facts
In both cases, the Secretary issued termination notices stating that she had consulted with “appropriate U.S. Government agencies” and reviewed current country conditions. For Syria, the notice acknowledged ongoing insurgent activity and humanitarian need but concluded that conditions no longer warranted continued designation following the fall of the Assad regime. For Haiti, the notice acknowledged persistent gang violence but also cited national-interest factors, including visa overstay rates and the Haitian government’s limited capacity to verify its nationals’ backgrounds.
The plaintiffs argued the Secretary had not genuinely consulted other agencies about country conditions before terminating either designation, relying on brief email exchanges with the State Department that addressed “foreign policy concerns” rather than safety conditions directly. The Haiti plaintiffs additionally pointed to public statements by President Trump and former Secretary Kristi Noem describing Haiti and Haitian immigrants in highly negative terms, arguing these statements showed racial motivation behind the termination decision.
Legal Issue
Are TPS holders challenging the termination of a country’s TPS designation entitled to interim relief postponing that termination while litigation proceeds, where their claims rest on alleged procedural noncompliance with the TPS statute and, in one case, an equal protection theory?
Legal Authority and Binding Status
The controlling provision is 8 U.S.C. §1254a(b)(5)(A), which states there is “no judicial review of any determination” by the Secretary of Homeland Security “with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.” This is a binding statutory judicial-review bar enacted as part of the TPS program itself, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of its scope governs all TPS termination challenges nationwide.
The TPS statute separately requires the Secretary to review each designation periodically, consult with appropriate agencies, determine whether statutory conditions for designation continue to be met, and publish notice in the Federal Register. 8 U.S.C. §§1254a(b)(2)-(3). The dispute centered on whether claims that the Secretary skipped or shortchanged these procedural steps fall inside or outside the judicial-review bar.
The Court also addressed, without resolving, whether a clear-statement rule from Webster v. Doe requires Congress to expressly preclude review of constitutional claims. The majority avoided that question by concluding the equal protection claim failed on the merits regardless of jurisdiction, while Justice Thomas’s concurrence argued the bar reaches constitutional claims as well.
Court’s Reasoning
Writing for the Court, Justice Alito explained that the word “determination” in §1254a(b)(5)(A) is broad enough to cover both a discrete decision and the entire process leading to that decision. Under either reading, the Court reasoned, the Secretary’s consultation steps and her assessment of country conditions are themselves “determinations” or are made “with respect to” the ultimate termination decision, and the phrase “with respect to” further broadens the bar’s reach under the Court’s precedent in Patel v. Garland.
Procedural vs. Substantive Determination
The Court rejected the argument, accepted by both lower courts, that the bar applies only to substantive determinations and not procedural ones. It distinguished McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center and Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians as resting on differently worded provisions rather than a general substance-only principle. The Court also rejected the Doe respondents’ narrower theory that “determination” refers only to an assessment of country conditions, noting the TPS statute uses that term in several other contexts unrelated to country conditions. Finally, the Court invoked the administrative-law principle that subsidiary agency decisions merge into final agency action, so if the ultimate termination decision is unreviewable, so are the steps leading to it.
Equal Protection argument
On the equal protection claim, the Court assumed without deciding that the Arlington Heights framework applied and asked whether a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in terminating Haiti’s designation. The majority characterized the cited statements by the President and former Secretary as policy criticisms of TPS and immigration generally rather than overtly racial statements, and it found a race-neutral explanation persuasive: the administration had terminated every TPS designation that came up for renewal during this term, across a geographically and racially diverse set of countries. On that basis, the majority concluded the Haiti plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their equal protection theory.
Justice Thomas concurred to add that the bar should also reach constitutional claims and that aliens lack equal protection rights against the federal government under the Fifth Amendment. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, arguing that “determination” in ordinary usage refers to a decision itself, not the procedural steps preceding it, and that the cited statements about Haitians were direct evidence of racial animus sufficient to support the District Court’s findings under a deferential clear-error standard.
Holding and Key Takeaways
The Court held that the TPS statute’s judicial-review bar forecloses all non-constitutional challenges to a Secretary’s TPS termination decision, including claims that the Secretary failed to consult adequately with other agencies before terminating a designation. Separately, the Court held that the Haiti plaintiffs’ equal protection claim was unlikely to succeed on the merits, because the evidence did not establish that race was a motivating factor in the termination decision. Both District Court orders postponing the terminations were reversed and the cases remanded.
This is a broad, categorical holding rather than a narrow, fact-specific one. It applies to any TPS termination challenge framed as a procedural APA claim, not just the Syria and Haiti terminations at issue here. The ruling does not foreclose all judicial review of TPS-related disputes, such as claims unrelated to the designation or termination decision itself, but it substantially narrows the avenues available to challenge a termination once the Secretary has acted. TPS holders for Syria and Haiti, along with similarly situated holders from other countries whose designations are reviewed going forward, are most directly affected.
Practical Immigration Implications
For TPS holders, this decision means that a procedural APA challenge to a termination decision is very unlikely to succeed in obtaining interim relief once the Secretary has issued a termination notice. Practitioners should not rely on consultation-based or process-based arguments as a primary litigation strategy and should instead counsel clients to prepare for the termination’s effective date, including evaluating alternative forms of relief such as asylum, adjustment of status, or other humanitarian protections well before TPS-based work authorization and protection from removal expire.
Employers who depend on TPS-based Employment Authorization Documents should audit their workforce for affected employees as soon as a termination notice is published in the Federal Register, since the 60-day window before termination takes effect leaves limited time to verify continued work authorization or transition employees to another status. Failure to do so creates exposure to unauthorized employment issues.
For litigators, the decision confirms that subsidiary procedural failures by the Secretary will not independently support judicial review, even where the underlying record on consultation appears thin. Constitutional claims remain a narrower, separate avenue, but this decision shows the Court will closely scrutinize the strength of the factual record on discriminatory intent and will credit available race-neutral explanations, particularly where a broader pattern of terminations across diverse countries exists. The Court left open, through Justice Thomas’s concurrence, the possibility that even constitutional claims could eventually be read as barred, a question practitioners should monitor in future TPS litigation.
How Immigration Professional Association Can Assist
Immigration Professional Association regularly advises clients on Temporary Protected Status eligibility, designation changes, and contingency planning when a country’s TPS status is reviewed or terminated. The firm has tracked related TPS litigation, including its coverage of National TPS Alliance v. Noem, and continues to monitor USCIS adjudication trends through resources such as its analysis of USCIS TPS application data.
For TPS holders facing the loss of status and work authorization, IPA can assess eligibility for alternative relief, including asylum and other humanitarian protections, and can advise on the practical effect of Employment Authorization Document expiration on current employment. For those facing potential removal proceedings, the firm’s deportation defense services address available forms of relief from removal.
This decision significantly limits the legal options available to challenge a TPS termination once notice has been issued, making early planning essential for affected individuals and their employers. Given the narrow window between a termination notice and its effective date, prompt legal consultation is critical to preserving lawful status and identifying alternative paths forward. Contact Immigration Professional Association to discuss your TPS status and available options.
