WASHINGTON (Gray DC) – The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a high-stakes immigration case that could decide whether the federal government can end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of people from Haiti and Syria.
Congress created TPS in 1990 to allow people from countries facing war, natural disasters or other crises to live and work in the U.S. on a temporary basis.
The TPS case now before the high court stems from a 2025 decision by then–Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to terminate protected status for migrants from both countries.
At the time, DHS officials claimed conditions in Haiti and Syria had improved enough to allow migrant returns – but lower courts blocked the move, which ultimately led the Trump administration to appeal.
The administration has argued the TPS statute gives the Homeland Security secretary sole authority to decide whether a country qualifies for protections, and whether those protections should be extended or terminated. Administration attorneys also contend the statute explicitly limit “judicial review.”
“When Congress eventually got around to enacting the TPS statute, they very clearly tried to limit judicial review. They didn’t want the courts involved in this at all” argued Matt Crapo, legislative director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
Crapo also told Gray Media that he believes TPS should live up to its name.
“It’s fine as long as it is temporary. It should not be a permanent immigration policy. It’s not really an immigration policy at all – it’s more of a humanitarian concern,” he said.
FAIR has filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the Trump administration’s position.
Supporters of TPS, including the International Refugee Assistance Project, argue that the statue doesn’t limit the amount of times a ‘protected status’ designation can be extended.
“If it’s not yet safe to return, TPS must continue,” said IRAP staff attorney Megan Hauptman.
Hauptman also argued that Noem’s decision was unlawful because it didn’t follow the statutory requirements for ending a TPS designation.
“It was motivated by discrimination or discriminatory animus towards people that the administration perceives as nonwhite, non-European immigrants that the administration does not want to stay in the country,” she said.
In a press conference Tuesday, some Democratic lawmakers urged the court to preserve the protections.
In 2025, the he Supreme Court weighed in on a related case involving Venezuelan migrants. The court allowed the administration to move forward with ending TPS while legal challenges continue, without a ruling on the broader legality.
That earlier decision could shape how justices approach Wednesday’s arguments as they weigh executive authority against the courts’ role in reviewing those decisions.
Copyright 2026 Gray DC. All rights reserved.