Trump's move to deport Haitian, Syrian immigrants is headed to the Supreme Court, with far-reaching consequences.
Listen to this article
Average 6 minutes
The audio version of this article was created by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations may occur. We are working with our partners to continuously review and improve the results.
The US Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday about the legality of the Donald Trump administration's move to revoke the temporary legal protection of hundreds of thousands of US citizens from two countries, part of the Republican president's mass deportation plan.
The current case comes as a result of legal challenges filed on behalf of Haitian and Syrian immigrants, but a ruling in favor of the Trump administration could have far-reaching implications for the 1.3 million immigrants from 17 designated countries who have received Temporary Protected Status (TPS). It could also affect the flow of immigrants to Canada.
“If the government is right, they can terminate TPS without reviewing the country's circumstances at all — they can do it for completely irrational reasons,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer for Syrian TPS recipients who challenged the administration's actions.
TPS designation, under the Immigration Act of 1990, was available to people whose country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event that makes it unsafe for them to stay, or return. TPS recipients, some of whom have been in the United States for years and may face separation from jobs and families, said it is cruel to think about sending them back to countries where they risk even death.
“This is about a war on this congressional system,” Arulanantham, director of the UCLA School of Law's Center for Immigration Law and Policy, told reporters during a recent briefing.
Front burner29:13What happens in an ICE arrest?
In a Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department said courts cannot review executive decisions in this immigration space.
“The TPS Act expressly prohibits judicial review of claims challenging the TPS Secretary's decisions, including the procedures and analysis based on those determinations,” the Justice Department said in a Supreme Court filing.
The attorney general is expected to argue to the government that the protections were not intended by Congress to last for years or decades, as has been the case in many cases.
“Temporary Protected Status is, by definition, temporary. It was never intended to be a path to permanent status or legal residency, no matter how badly leftist organizations want it to be,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to Reuters.
Many Haitians in the US were first granted TPS status in 2010 after a devastating earthquake struck their country, killing hundreds of thousands. The US government has repeatedly extended this position, most recently under Trump's successor, Joe Biden.
Syrians were first granted protected status in 2012, during a civil war that lasted more than a decade before the fall of President Bashar al-Assad's government in late 2024.
Groups of TPS owners in Syria and Haiti have filed class-action lawsuits alleging that the termination notices were a pretext for the administration's plan to end existing appointments. The lawsuit alleges that then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem did not comply with the TPS Act's process of contacting other government agencies about the internal situation in the country before revoking the protection status.
The government countered that the consultation included a State Department official responding to a Homeland Security official's email to say there were “no foreign policy concerns” about ending the appointment.
But the State Department currently warns against traveling to Haiti or Syria for any reason, due to concerns that include widespread violence, crime, terrorism and kidnappings. Four Haitian women deported to the US in February were found decapitated and dumped in a river months later, lawyers for those challenging the government said in court papers.
Judge sees 'racial animus'
Under Trump, the Department of Homeland Security has moved to end TPS status for US residents from 13 countries. The Trump administration and its spokespeople have encouraged non-citizens to deport themselves, and the US to deport people to countries with which it has 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 repeal TPS protections during his first term as president, and made it clear during his 2024 election that he would try again. During that presidential campaign, he made false and derogatory comments about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Ohio, which led to bomb threats in at least one city.
Haiti has qualified for the 2026 World Cup for the first time in 50 years, but the travel ban and immigration crackdown will keep many fans away from US games. Nationally, CBC's Eli Glasner talks to Haitians about the meaning of this era and explains why some are calling FIFA hypocritical.
The argument that the courts have no role in reviewing the legality of certain actions by the presidential administration is familiar to Trump. His administration has led to many challenges to his policies, part of a broader crackdown on judicial power.
In the Haiti case, US District Judge Ana Reyes ruled that the administration's action was likely motivated in part by “racial anger,” violating the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment promise of equal protection under the law.
Reyes cited statements by Trump and Noem, including the former secretary of homeland security who had posted on social media calling him murderers of immigrants and leeches.
“Plaintiffs allege that Secretary Noem premeditated the decision to revoke her and did so because of hostility toward non-white immigrants. This seems very likely,” Reyes wrote.
The Department of Justice rejected this interpretation, saying that neither Trump's nor Noem's statement addressed race. It said the Supreme Court should exercise jurisdiction over executive branch deference in matters of immigration, foreign policy and national security.
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 majority including three justices appointed by Trump in his first term, is expected to issue its opinion on the case in late June or early July.
