The United States Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to end legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants, handing the president another major victory on immigration.
In a 6-3 decision on Thursday, the court ruled that the administration can revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for about 350,000 Haitians and roughly 6,100 Syrians, overturning lower court rulings that had blocked the move.
The decision could also shape future legal challenges involving TPS holders from other countries.
Temporary Protected Status allows foreign nationals from countries devastated by war, natural disasters or other extraordinary crises to live and work legally in the United States for renewable 18-month periods. While under the programme, recipients are protected from detention or deportation based solely on their immigration status.
The United States first granted TPS to Haitians after the devastating 2010 earthquake and extended the protection to Syrians following the outbreak of the country’s civil war in 2012.
Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said federal law gives the executive branch broad authority over TPS decisions and prevents courts from second-guessing those determinations.
He also rejected claims that the administration’s decision was motivated by racial discrimination, saying the plaintiffs were unlikely to prove violations of the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantees.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan argued that evidence presented by the challengers suggested race played a role in the administration’s decision to end protections for Haitians.
“The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country,” Kagan wrote.
The Trump administration welcomed the ruling.
“The T in TPS stands for TEMPORARY, yet many of these designations became de facto amnesty,” Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival wrote on X.
“This is a win for the rule of law and common sense.”
The ruling means TPS holders from Haiti and Syria could now lose their legal right to remain in the United States, leaving many at risk of deportation.
Immigrant advocates warned the consequences would be severe.
Jill Habig, chief executive of the Public Rights Project, which supported the legal challenge through amicus briefs filed on behalf of dozens of local governments, said the decision would have lasting humanitarian and economic consequences.
“Today’s decision puts hundreds of thousands of people at risk,” Habig said.
“Families will be separated, local economies will take a hit, and people will be forced back to countries experiencing violence, instability and humanitarian collapse. The human cost will be felt all across America.”
The decision comes after Trump repeatedly targeted immigration during his 2024 presidential campaign, including amplifying false claims that Haitian immigrants were abducting and eating household pets.
Court Also Backs Tougher Border Asylum Rules
In a separate 6-3 ruling issued Thursday, the Supreme Court also sided with the Trump administration on another major immigration dispute, ruling that migrants stopped on the Mexican side of the border cannot apply for asylum until they physically enter U.S. territory.
The administration argued that federal law allows asylum applications only from migrants who have already “arrived” in the United States.
Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said the wording of the law was clear.
“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place before the person enters that place,” he wrote.
When the case reached the Supreme Court in March, government lawyer Vivek Suri argued that the legal question was straightforward.
“You can’t arrive in the United States while you’re still standing in Mexico. That should be the end of this case,” he told the justices.
Lawyers representing immigrant advocacy groups argued that asylum seekers should be considered to have arrived once they present themselves at an official U.S. port of entry.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, warned that the ruling would have deadly consequences.
“More people will die,” she wrote. “More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not.”
The ruling effectively revives a border policy first introduced under the Obama administration in 2016, known as “metering,” which allowed border officials to limit the number of asylum applications processed each day because of capacity constraints at ports of entry.
The policy was scrapped by President Joe Biden in 2021 but can now be reinstated following the Supreme Court’s decision.
