Supreme Court to Rule on Trump’s Termination of Temporary Protected Status for Migrants

Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Trump’s TPS Terminations

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on two pivotal cases—Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot—that challenge the Trump administration’s decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from 13 countries. The cases center on whether the administration’s abrupt revocation of protections was lawful, given the ongoing humanitarian crises in the affected nations.

The outcomes of these cases could have far-reaching implications for thousands of foreign nationals currently residing in the United States under TPS, many of whom face life-threatening conditions if forced to return to their home countries.

What Is Temporary Protected Status (TPS)?

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a humanitarian program established by the U.S. Congress in 1990. It allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to grant temporary legal status to noncitizens who are already in the United States when their home countries experience armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions that make return unsafe. Prior to 1990, a similar program called “extended voluntary departure” existed, but the 1990 law formalized the process.

TPS is designed to be temporary. The DHS is required to periodically review the list of countries eligible for TPS and remove them once the humanitarian crisis abates. Individuals granted TPS must register annually and are ineligible if they have a felony conviction, multiple misdemeanor convictions, or ties to drug trafficking or terrorism. TPS holders are permitted to work in the United States during their temporary stay.

Trump Administration’s Hostility Toward TPS

During his first day back in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” Among its directives, the order instructed his Cabinet to ensure that TPS designations were “appropriately limited in scope and made for only so long as may be necessary to fulfill the textual requirements of that statute.”

Following this directive, the Trump administration terminated TPS designations for all 13 countries whose protections were due for review. In some cases, the terminations occurred before the scheduled review or the expiration of the previous designation. The 13 countries affected by these terminations are:

• Yemen
• Somalia
• Ethiopia
• Haiti
• Burma
• South Sudan
• Syria
• Venezuela
• Honduras
• Nicaragua
• Nepal
• Cameroon
• Afghanistan

Key Cases Before the Supreme Court

The two cases before the Supreme Court—Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot—challenge the legality of these terminations. The cases will be argued on April 23, 2025.

Mullin v. Doe concerns the Trump administration’s decision to strip TPS designation from Syria. Syria has been embroiled in a civil war for years, and the country ousted its president in 2024. The termination of TPS for Syrian nationals leaves them in a precarious position, as returning to Syria could mean facing ongoing conflict and instability.

Trump v. Miot involves Haitian nationals who fear returning to their home country. Haiti has been plagued by political instability, violence, and gang control, with much of the country under the sway of criminal factions. The termination of TPS for Haitian nationals has left many in limbo, uncertain about their future in the United States.

A funeral ceremony for a policeman in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on July 7, 2025, underscores the ongoing violence and instability in the country. The image, captured by Guerinault Louis for Anadolu via Getty Images, serves as a stark reminder of the humanitarian crises driving these legal challenges.

"Imagine being a foreign national vacationing in New York when a civil war breaks out in your home country. Political dissidents and bystanders are being killed by the thousands. Meanwhile, your tourist visa is about to expire, and returning home could mean a death sentence."

What’s at Stake?

The Supreme Court’s decision in these cases will determine whether the Trump administration’s termination of TPS was lawful. For the thousands of individuals and families affected, the ruling could mean the difference between staying in the United States or being forced to return to dangerous conditions in their home countries. The cases also highlight broader debates about immigration policy, humanitarian protections, and the executive branch’s authority to terminate such programs.