Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Revocation of Temporary Protected Status

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 29, 2026, in two consolidated cases, Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, concerning President Trump's revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 6,000 Syrian nationals and 350,000 Haitian nationals.

TPS allows the executive branch to grant temporary residency to foreign nationals from countries facing natural disasters, violent conflicts, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions. Lower courts had blocked the Trump administration's efforts to terminate TPS for these groups.

U.S. Sauer said the provision bars review of both the ultimate decision and antecedent steps. He added that even if claims are not barred, they are meritless.

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Sauer on which executive actions related to TPS are reviewable by courts. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor also asked about the scope of judicial review. Chief Justice John Roberts interjected to allow Sauer to respond to one of Sotomayor's questions.

Sotomayor and Jackson referenced past remarks by President Trump about certain countries and suggested that a discriminatory purpose may have influenced the TPS terminations. Associate Justice Elena Kagan asked Sauer about the reviewability of statutory requirements for determining country conditions and consultations with administration officials.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas asked Sauer if Congress can limit TPS regulations given executive discretionary authority. Roberts questioned whether Sauer's argument expands the court's holding in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which upheld travel restrictions.

Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about procedural objections and standards for reviewing consultations if judicial review is allowed. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Sauer to explain why Congress would bar judicial review broadly.

They stated the Trump administration did not adhere to this process. Pipoly argued the decision for Haitians was racially motivated. Thomas questioned both attorneys on the statute's jurisdiction-stripping provision. Barrett posed a hypothetical about terminating TPS despite adverse country conditions, asking if courts could review procedural aspects.

Arulanantham said challengers could not dispute the secretary's judgment over advisors but could review if consultations occurred. Barrett noted this might amount to a box-checking exercise. Associate Justice Samuel Alito challenged Pipoly on claims of racial motivation, questioning the classification of affected groups as non-white.

The Supreme Court previously paused similar injunctions in a TPS case involving Venezuelan nationals. The current cases could determine if TPS designations are subject to judicial oversight. The outcomes may affect hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals currently under TPS in the United States.