Supreme Court Hears Haiti and Syria TPS Cases: What April 29 Oral Arguments Mean

What Happened at the Supreme Court on April 29

On Wednesday, April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated cases that will decide whether the Trump administration can end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians living lawfully in the United States. The cases are Mullin v. Doe (the Haiti case) and Trump v. Miot (the Syria case). The two arguments were heard back to back on the final day of the Court's April argument session.

According to multiple news outlets covering the argument, the six-justice conservative majority signaled it will side with the administration. The Justices spent most of their time on a procedural question that could decide the case before the Court ever reaches the merits: whether federal courts have any power to review a TPS termination at all. If the Court answers that question the way the government wants, then the Secretary of Homeland Security will be free to end TPS designations with little or no judicial check, and roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians could lose their work authorization and protection from deportation later this year.

The Two Cases and Why They Are Joined

Haiti was first designated for TPS in January 2010, after the catastrophic earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people and destroyed Port-au-Prince. The designation has been extended repeatedly through Democratic and Republican administrations. The Biden administration most recently extended Haiti TPS through February 2026. Earlier this year, the Trump administration moved to terminate the designation, citing improvements that the lower courts found were not supported by the kind of country-conditions review the statute requires.

Syria was designated in 2012 after the brutal crackdown by the Assad regime. The Trump administration moved to terminate Syria TPS as part of the same policy push.

Lower federal courts blocked the terminations and ordered the government to keep TPS in place while litigation continues. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to take the cases together because the same legal questions arise in both, and the Justices agreed.

The Government's Argument and the Plaintiffs' Argument

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the cases for the United States. His central position is that Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security broad and unreviewable discretion to designate, extend, and terminate TPS. In Sauer's framing, allowing federal courts to second-guess country-conditions findings would amount to "judicial micromanagement" of foreign policy and immigration enforcement. The government also argued that the lower courts went too far when they reinstated the designations on a class-wide basis.

Ahilan T. Arulanantham argued for the plaintiffs. His position is that the statute itself sets up procedural guardrails. Before terminating a TPS designation, the Secretary must review country conditions, consult with other government agencies, and give TPS holders at least 60 days of notice. Arulanantham summarized his view in a single line that the courtroom heard repeatedly: "the Secretary can terminate TPS, but he must turn square corners and follow the rules Congress set."

Liberal Justices, including Justice Elena Kagan, also pressed the government on whether President Trump's past statements about Haiti and Haitians could be considered as evidence of an unlawful motive. The government's lawyer pushed back hard on that line of questioning.

Signals from the Bench

Several reporters on the ground noted the same pattern. The conservative Justices appeared receptive to the government's preclusion-of-review theory. The liberal Justices appeared skeptical and looked for ways to keep some judicial review intact.

Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Solicitor General Sauer on whether the government's view amounted to a "significant expansion" of the Court's earlier holding in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). That question matters because Trump v. Hawaii already gives the executive branch wide latitude on national-security and entry policy. If the Court extends that latitude to TPS terminations, judicial review of immigration enforcement would shrink further.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Sauer to explain why Congress would have barred judicial review as broadly as the government claims. Kavanaugh also separately observed that conditions on the ground in Syria are different today than they were when TPS was first designated in 2012, which suggested he was at least open to the idea that some conditions can change in ways that justify termination on the merits.

The liberal Justices, including Justice Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, focused on procedural and equal-protection concerns. Justice Kagan offered a series of pointed hypotheticals testing how far the government's position would go.

Why This Matters for Massachusetts and the Haitian Community

Massachusetts is home to a large and longstanding Haitian community, with deep roots in Brockton, Mattapan, Randolph, Everett, Malden, Stoughton, and the Greater Boston area. Many Haitian Massachusetts residents have lived in the United States for fifteen or more years on TPS. They have U.S. citizen children. They own homes. They pay taxes. They serve as nurses, certified nursing assistants, food service workers, drivers, mechanics, and small business owners across the state.

If the Supreme Court rules for the administration, the legal pathway that has kept these families in the United States for the past sixteen years could close in a matter of weeks. Work permits tied to TPS would expire on the schedule set by the Department of Homeland Security. Families that have built careers and educations here could face the prospect of removal to a country that the State Department itself describes as in active humanitarian crisis.

The Syrian community in Massachusetts is smaller in number but faces similar consequences if the Court rules against the plaintiffs.

What I Recommend to Haitian and Syrian TPS Clients This Week

1. Pull Together Your Immigration File

Find your current TPS approval notice (Form I-797), your most recent Employment Authorization Document (EAD), every prior TPS approval notice you have, your I-94 record, and any USCIS receipts. If you cannot locate them, file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to USCIS. Having a complete record makes every other step faster.

2. Review Every Other Possible Form of Relief

TPS is one form of protection. It is not the only one. Many TPS holders are eligible, or can become eligible, for one or more of the following: family-based adjustment of status through a U.S. citizen spouse, parent, or adult child; asylum or withholding of removal based on country conditions in Haiti or Syria; U-visa or T-visa relief if the person was a victim of a qualifying crime; VAWA self-petition for survivors of domestic violence by a U.S. citizen or LPR family member; cancellation of removal if the person has been continuously present for at least ten years and has qualifying U.S. citizen or LPR relatives. Some clients have multiple paths and have not pursued them because TPS has been working for them. That changes after April 29.

3. Renew Your TPS and EAD Now if You Are Eligible

If a renewal window is open or about to open, file. The lower court orders that have kept Haiti and Syria TPS in force are still in effect today. Filing a renewal under the current rules preserves your status and your work authorization for as long as the law allows.

4. Make a Family Plan

If you have U.S. citizen children, talk to a trusted adult about who would care for them if you were detained or removed. Sign a power of attorney for school decisions, medical decisions, and finances. Keep copies of important documents in a safe place. If you have older relatives in your household, do the same for them. None of this means you are giving up. It means you are protecting your family while we fight for the long-term outcome.

5. Watch for the Decision and Plan Around the Calendar

The Supreme Court term ends in late June or early July. The Justices typically issue their biggest decisions in the final weeks. Expect the Haiti and Syria TPS opinion in that window. Plan any major life decisions, including international travel, around that calendar with the help of your attorney.

What the Pending House Bill and Court Orders Mean Right Now

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1689, the Haiti TPS extension bill, by a vote of 224 to 204 on April 16, 2026. The bill would extend Haiti TPS through April 2029. As of the date of this post, that bill remains pending in the Senate, where the path to 60 votes is uncertain and President Trump has threatened to veto it. We covered that vote in detail in this earlier post. The Senate's action and the Supreme Court's decision will determine the future of Haiti TPS together. Neither alone will be the last word.

Lower federal court orders that block the terminations remain in effect for now. That is why Haitians and Syrians with TPS still have work authorization and protection from removal today. If the Supreme Court reverses those lower court orders, the protection will fall away on the schedule the government chooses, subject only to whatever transition rules the Court imposes.

Frequently Asked Questions