TPS recipients can legally live and work in the US for up to 18 months, subject to extensions. During this period, they can not be removed or detained by authorities on the basis of their immigration status.
The US first provided TPS to Haitians after a major earthquake in 2010 and to Syrians after their country descended into civil war in 2012.
Thursday’s decision is likely to have implications for TPS holders from other countries too.
In his ruling, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the law governing TPS clearly prevents courts from reviewing government decisions.
Justice Alito also said the Haitian migrants who sued were unlikely to prove that the administration’s actions were racially discriminatory and violated US constitution’s equal-protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The three liberal justices in the top court dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan said that the government’s decision to remove these protections were racially motivated.
“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,” she said.
The Trump administration welcomed the ruling.
“The T in TPS stands for TEMPORARY, yet many of these designations became de facto amnesty,” James Percival, the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, said on X after the ruling.
“This is a win for the rule of law and common sense.”
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump amplified false rumours about Haitian immigrants, including that they were abducting and eating house pets.
With this ruling, the court has now cleared the way for the Trump administration to remove legal protections for TPS recipients, meaning they could face deportation.
“Today’s decision puts hundreds of thousands of people at risk”, said Jill Habig, CEO and Founder of Public Rights Project, which filed amicus briefs on behalf of 47 local governments and leaders, urging the Supreme Court to preserve TPS for Haitian immigrants.
The local fallout of the ruling will result in a community crisis, she said.
“Families will be separated, local economies will take a hit and people will be forced back to countries in the grip of violence, instability and humanitarian collapse,” Habig said. “The human cost will be felt all across America.”
The court backed the Trump administration in another immigration related ruling on Thursday.
In the 6-3 ruling, the court has said the Trump administration can turn away migrants seeking asylum along the US-Mexico border if they have not set foot on US soil.
Under federal law, a migrant who “arrives” in the US may apply for asylum, which the Trump administration had argued ruled out those stopped on the Mexican side of the border.
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court on Thursday, calling the case “straightforward”.
“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place . . . before the person enters that place,” he said in his opinion.
When this case reached the Supreme Court in March, arguments focused on what it means to arrive in the US.
Vivek Suri, an assistant to the solicitor general, arguing for the Trump administration, told the court: “You can’t arrive in the United States while you’re still standing in Mexico. That should be the end of this case.”
A lawyer for an immigrant advocacy group had argued that asylum seekers arrive in the US when they reach a port of entry.
Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor, who voted against the ruling, called the consequences of the court’s decision “predictable” in her dissent.
“More people will die,” she said. “More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not.”
The requirement to be physically present in the US to apply for asylum was first introduced in 2016 during the Obama administration.
The policy, called “metering” was put in place to allow border control agents to limit the number of asylum seekers allowed to request protection each day on the grounds that the facilities on the US side of a border crossing area were at capacity.
The court’s ruling has allowed Trump, a Republican, to revive the 2016 policy which was rescinded in 2021 under the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden.
