Mullin v. Doe, Docket No. 25-1083

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

The Supreme Court just made it nearly impossible for hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Haitian immigrants to challenge the government's decision to end their legal status in the United States. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court ruled that judges cannot review whether the government followed its own rules when ending Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, a program that allows people to stay in America when their home countries are too dangerous. For the people affected, this means losing the legal right to work, live, and build lives they have established over more than a decade. For the broader legal system, it means the government can now make major immigration decisions with virtually no court oversight.

What Is Temporary Protected Status and Why Does It Matter?

Congress created TPS in 1990 as a humanitarian safety valve. When a country faces armed conflict, earthquakes, epidemics, or other catastrophic conditions, the government can grant TPS to its citizens already in the United States. This lets them stay and work legally while conditions improve back home. It is not a path to citizenship. It is temporary relief.

Syria received TPS protection in 2012 after its civil war began. Haiti received it in 2010 after a devastating earthquake killed hundreds of thousands. Both countries renewed their status repeatedly for over a decade. Then in 2025, the Secretary of Homeland Security ended both designations, claiming conditions had improved. The people affected sued, arguing the government acted unlawfully. Lower courts temporarily blocked the terminations, but the Supreme Court reversed those decisions.

The Core Legal Fight: Can Courts Check If the Government Followed the Rules?

The central question before the court was simple but consequential: when the law says courts cannot review a TPS "determination," does that mean courts cannot review the final decision only, or does it mean courts cannot review anything about the process?

The immigrants argued courts should still be able to check whether the government followed required steps, like consulting with other agencies before deciding. The government countered that the law blocks all court review, period. The majority agreed with the government. The word "determination" covers the entire decision-making process, not just the final call. This means even if the government skipped required consultations or ignored its own procedures, courts cannot do anything about it.

Justice Kagan's dissent pointed out this reading makes every procedural requirement optional. A Secretary could ignore all the rules and no court could intervene. She noted the government barely consulted with other agencies about Haiti, sending only a few short emails that did not seriously address conditions there.

The Discrimination Question: Did Bias Play a Role?

The Haitian plaintiffs raised an additional argument that racial bias motivated the decision. They pointed to statements from President Trump and former Secretary Noem describing Haiti as a "shithole country" and falsely claiming Haitians were eating pets. Under established legal standards, a government decision can be struck down if racial bias was even one factor among several.

The majority assumed the toughest legal standard applied but still ruled against the plaintiffs. The statements were not explicitly about race, the Court said. And the government ended TPS for 13 countries across multiple continents and racial groups, suggesting a blanket policy rather than targeted discrimination.

Justice Kagan lodged a firm disagreement. She quoted the statements at length and argued they clearly showed racial bias was part of the picture. The legal standard does not require race to be the only reason or even the main reason. It only requires that race was a reason. She also described the real people behind the case, individuals who face life-threatening danger if forced to return home.

What This Decision Actually Changes

The ruling closes off most legal challenges to TPS terminations. The Court left one narrow opportunity that constitutional claims might still survive, though the majority did not explicitly say so. Justice Thomas wanted to close that door too, but the majority declined to directly address it.

The practical effect is stark. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Haitians who have built lives, started businesses, and raised families in America now have no meaningful legal protection. They can be deported even if the government violated its own procedures or acted with discriminatory intent. For the broader legal system, it means immigration decisions get special treatment. Courts defer to the government far more in immigration cases than in other areas of law.

Why This Matters Beyond the Courtroom

Real people are affected by this decision. Syrians who fled a brutal civil war face potential return to active conflict. Haitians who survived an earthquake and built stable lives now face deportation to a country with gang violence and political instability. The decision also signals that courts will have minimal power to check government immigration decisions going forward, even when the government ignores its own rules or acts with bias.

The Supreme Court's decision reflects a fundamental disagreement about how much power courts should have to oversee government agencies. The majority trusts the executive branch to police itself. The dissent argues that without court review, there is no real check on government power. For the people affected by this decision, they have lost their day in court.