Trump's move to deport Haitian, Syrian immigrants goes to Supreme Court, with possible wider implications

How ruff turned water ice into a mass deportation political machine

The U.S. Sublime Court will hear arguments Wednesday over ⁠the ⁠legality of a move by Donald Trump's administration to revoke ⁠temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of U.S. Residents from two countries, part of the Republican president's ​mass deportation agenda.

The case at hand is occurring as a result of legal challenges filed on behalf of Haitian and Syrian migrants, but a ruling in favour of the Trump administration could have wide implications for 1.3 million immigrants from 17 designated countries who have received Temporary Protected Status (TPS). It could also affect migrant flows to Canada.

"If the government is correct, then they can terminate TPS without conducting any country conditions review ‌at all — they can do it for reasons that are completely arbitrary," said Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer for the Syrian TPS recipients who challenged the ⁠administration's actions.

The TPS designation, under the Immigration Act of 1990, has been available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event which makes it unsafe for them to stay, or return. TPS recipients, some of whom have been in the United States for years and could face separation from jobs and families, have said it is cruel to consider sending them back to countries where ‌they risk danger and even death.

"This really is about a war on this congressional statute," Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA School of Law's Center for Immigration Law and Policy, told reporters during a recent conference call.

In a Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department has said the courts cannot review an administration's decisions in this immigration space.

"The TPS statute unambiguously bars judicial review of claims that attack ​the secretary's TPS determinations, including the procedures and analysis underlying those determinations," the Justice Department said in a Supreme Court filing.

The solicitor general is also expected to argue on behalf of the government that the protections were not intended by Congress to last for years or decades, as has happened in many cases.

"Temporary Protected Status is, by definition, temporary. It was never intended to be a pathway to permanent status or legal residency, no matter how badly left-wing organizations want it to be," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement to Reuters.

Many Haitians in the U.S. Were first afforded TPS status in 2010 after a devastating earthquake struck their country, killing hundreds of thousands. The U.S. Government has repeatedly extended the status, most ​recently under Trump's successor, Joe Biden.

Protections for Syrians were first granted protected status in 2012, during a civil war that lasted for more than a decade before the fall of President Bashar al-Assad's government in late 2024.

Groups of Syrian and Haitian TPS holders filed class-action lawsuits alleging the termination notices were mere pretext for the administration's plan to end existing designations. The lawsuit says that then-Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem did not comply with the TPS law's procedural mandate to consult other federal gencies concerning conditions inside a country before revoking protective status.

The government has countered that the consultation consisted of a State Department official replying to a Homeland ⁠Security Department official's email to say there were "no foreign policy concerns" with ending the designations.

But the State Department currently warns against travelling to either Haiti or Syria for any reason, due to concerns which include widespread violence, crime, terrorism and kidnapping. Four Haitian women who were deported from the U.S. In February were found beheaded and dumped in a river several months later, lawyers for those challening the government said in court documents.

Under Trump, the Department of Homeland Security has moved to end TPS status for U.S. Residents hailing from 13 countries. Trump administration agencies and spokespeople have also encouraged non-citizens to self-deport, and the U.S. Has deported invididuals to countries with which they have no ties, ending the adherence of previous Democratic and Republican administrations to the principle of non-refoulement under international law.

Trump sought but ⁠failed to rescind TPS protections during his first term as president, and made clear while running for office in 2024 that he would try again. During that presidential campaign, he made false and derogatory clams about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Ohio, leading to bomb threats in at least one town.

Will Trump stop Haiti’s World Cup party before it even starts?

The argument that courts have no role in reviewing the legality of certain actions by a presidential administration is a familiar one for Trump. His administration has made it in numerous challenges to his policies, part of a broader push against the power of judges.

In the Haiti case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes decided the administration's action likely was motivated in part by "racial animus," violating the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment promise of equal protection under the law.

Reyes referenced statements by Trump and Noem, including the former homeland security secretary's social media post labelling immigrants killers and leeches.

"Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely," Reyes wrote.

The Justice Department rejected the characterization, saying no statement by Trump or Noem mentions race. ⁠It said the Supreme Court should apply precedents that give deference to the executive branch on matters of immigration, ‌foreign policy and national security matters.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority including three justices nominated by Trump in his first term, is expected to publish its opinion on this case in late June or early July.

---

---