Don’t miss the full story from our staff writers, whose reportage is the basis of this article.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in cases challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to end Temporary Protected Status for migrants from Haiti and Syria, in what could be a pivotal test of presidential power over immigration policy.
TPS, created by Congress in 1990, allows Homeland Security to shield migrants from deportation when their home countries are experiencing natural disasters, armed conflict, epidemics or political instability. The Biden administration expanded the program significantly, ultimately extending protections to more than a million migrants from more than a dozen countries. The Trump administration has moved to terminate TPS designations across the board, arguing the program has been exploited as an immigration loophole.
Wednesday’s arguments center on two specific cases — one involving roughly 350,000 Haitian TPS holders, and another covering about 6,000 Syrians. Lower courts ruled in both instances that the Department of Homeland Security violated the law by ending protections without adequately considering conditions in those countries. The Trump administration is asking the justices to reverse those rulings, contending that TPS decisions are tied to the president’s foreign policy powers and that the law grants the administration broad discretion.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in his pre-argument brief that policy objections cannot override statutory text — a signal the administration believes the plain language of the law supports its position.
Legal analysts are divided on how the court, and Chief Justice John Roberts in particular, is likely to rule. Roberts was a decisive vote against the Trump administration in 2020 when he ruled that the president’s attempt to dismantle the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, failed to properly account for the reliance interests of those affected. But Roberts sided with Trump in 2018, writing the majority opinion upholding the administration’s travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.
Some legal observers see the TPS cases tracking more closely to the travel ban precedent, noting that the program’s explicit temporary designation suggests Congress did not intend for it to become a permanent immigration status. Others argue TPS is more like DACA because it deals with people already living in the United States — a posture in which courts have historically been less deferential to the executive branch.
The Supreme Court last year allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending TPS for Venezuela, affecting more than 600,000 migrants.
This article was constructed with the assistance of artificial intelligence and published by a member of The Washington Times' AI News Desk team. The contents of this report are based solely on The Washington Times' original reporting, wire services, and/or other sources cited within the report. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Steve Fink, Director of Artificial Intelligence, at sfink@washingtontimes.com
The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.