Supreme Court Hears TPS Case Affecting 350K Haitians

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in cases that could determine whether the Trump administration can revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians living in the United States. The court's decision will have far-reaching implications for nearly 1.3 million immigrants currently protected under TPS.

The cases before the court—Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot—stem from then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem's decisions to end TPS for thousands of Syrians and Haitians as part of a broader immigration crackdown.

The case consolidates two lawsuits: one from a group of Syrians challenging the termination of their TPS status, and another from Haitians who argue that the administration's decision was motivated by anti-Black and anti-Haitian sentiments. The Supreme Court will first decide whether courts can review the legality of the TPS termination decisions before addressing their merits.

During Wednesday's oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer maintained that the statute clearly bars any court review of the administration's decisions. He dismissed the idea that a separate law established to provide procedural fairness allows courts to review the Homeland Security agency's decision-making. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether Congress wrote a statute for no purpose, and Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns about the lack of consultation with the State Department.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson posed hypothetical scenarios, such as using a Ouija board to make decisions, to which Sauer stood firm. The argument also touched on potential racial animus, with Sotomayor referencing President Trump's past statements about Haiti and immigrants. Sauer insisted that then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem did not mention race in her decision-making process.

Lawyer Geoffrey Pipoly, representing the Haitians, described the administration's review as a sham driven by racial animus toward non-white immigrants. He cited derogatory remarks made by Noem and contrasted them with humanitarian relief provided to white South Africans. Justice Samuel Alito challenged Pipoly on his categorization of different ethnic groups as non-white.

At the end of the court session, it appeared that President Trump's conservative appointees were largely supporting his administration's position. The Supreme Court also announced a 6-to-3 decision gutting what remains of the Voting Rights Act, further indicating a shift in judicial interpretation of immigration and civil rights laws.

Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot left Haiti in 2010 after a deadly earthquake hit the island nation. As hundreds of thousands of Haitians died in the catastrophe, Miot fled to the United States, where he was granted temporary protected status, a short-term visa program. Miot, now 33, has lived in the U.S. ever since and researches Alzheimer's disease in California as a doctoral candidate.

Central to Wednesday's debate were two questions: First, did then Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem follow correct procedure when deciding it would be safe to send people back to Haiti and Syria? Second, did the judicial branch have the legal right to interfere in the secretary's decisions on temporary protected status?

Noem was criticized for not sufficiently consulting other state agencies when evaluating Haiti and Syria's safety conditions. She was accused of violating the Administrative Procedures Act. Some Democratic-appointed Justices highlighted brief email exchanges Noem made with the State Department that led her to terminate Haiti and Syria's status.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether a 'meaningful exchange' of information was made and whether Noem made any effort to actually evaluate the nation's safety conditions, which is the basis of how temporary protected status is granted. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that minimal oversight was required of the DHS secretary in these decisions.

Immigrant advocates watched the case closely, with Lucas Guttentag, a Stanford law professor who started the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, stating that this is part of a larger campaign to 'de-legalize' lawful immigrants and potentially 'eviscerate the immigration and asylum protection system covered in this country for decades and generations.'

However, Ira Mehlman, the media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, argued that many Haitians arrived 16 years ago, stating that by no reasonable assessment of the law or English language could you consider that time frame temporary.

Liana Zogbi, a spokesperson from the non-profit Syrian Forum USA, painted a different picture. She said that Syrians would be 'returning to literally nothing' should the Supreme Court rule in the government's favor and Syrians be sent home. The State Department currently advises U.S. citizens not to travel to Syria or Haiti due to safety concerns.

Vilès Dorsainvil, a plaintiff in Trump v. Miot and co-founder of the Haitian Support Center in Springfield, Ohio, described the impact of President Trump's statements on the Haitian community. He mentioned being falsely accused of eating pets and facing increased fear and disruption within the community due to these remarks.

Dorsainvil left Haiti in 2018 after becoming a target of hoodlums demanding money he couldn't pay. He highlighted that TPS allows him and other Haitians to work and provide for their families, emphasizing the uncertainty they face if TPS is ended. The community's fear of deportation and family separation was underscored as a significant concern.