The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with the Trump administration’s push to end legal protections for migrants fleeing war and natural disaster, hearing arguments that offer the latest test of how the justices will assess the legality of the president’s far-reaching crackdown.
Several conservative justices appeared to be leaning in favor of the Republican administration’s argument that the law limits what courts can do with a program known as temporary protected status, or TPS. The outcome could come down to how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett vote.
The government is appealing lower court orders that blocked the Department of Homeland Security from immediately ending temporary protected status for people from Haiti and Syria. If the justices agree with President Donald Trump, authorities potentially could strip protections from up to 1.3 million people from 17 countries, exposing them to possible deportation.
The court has sided with the administration before and allowed the end of the program for people from Venezuela as lawsuits continue to play out.
The Department of Justice argues that the homeland security secretary has the power to end the program, and that the law bars judges from questioning those decisions. “The kind of determination that is at issue here is just the sort of determination that lies kind of at the heartland of what has been traditionally entrusted to the political branches,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer said.
Lawyers for about 350,000 migrants from Haiti and 6,000 from Syria say the government short-circuited the process and that judges can consider whether authorities followed all the steps laid out in the law.
‘This really is life or death’
Since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, DHS has ended the protections people from 13 countries. Some who have lived and worked in the U.S. legally for more than a decade have lost jobs and housing in a matter of weeks, lawyers said. Returning to Haiti and Syria is out of the question for many people because those countries remain wracked with violence and instability, said Sejal Zota, co-founder and legal director of Just Futures Law.
“This really is life or death,” she said. Four Haitian women who were deported from the United States in February were found beheaded and dumped in a river several months later, lawyers said in court documents.
The administration appealed to the high court after judges in New York and the District of Columbia agreed to delay the end of protections. One judge found that “hostility to nonwhite immigrants” likely played a role in the decision to end protections for Haitians.
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants were abducting and eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio, home to a large community of people with protected legal status.
“Haitian people are here, they are homeowners, business owners, they’re working, they are paying taxes, so there will be a big impact in the economy,” said Rose-Thamar Joseph, operations manager of the Haitian Community Help and Support Center, after listening to Supreme Court arguments.
Roberts look back at 2018 ruling
Federal authorities have denied that racial animus played any role in the decisions about legal protections. They also cite a Supreme Court decision from Trump’s first term that rejected bias claims based on his social media posts and upheld a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.
Roberts, though, questioned whether that the administration is asking for a “significant expansion” of the decision he wrote in 2018.
Barrett, who has two children adopted from Haiti, posed questions to both sides about the process and whether judges really can step in.
“Why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect when really what everybody cares about much more is the substance?” Barrett asked a lawyer for Syrian migrants.
“I think it’s because Congress, and us, too, and the millions of people who live with TPS holders, have some faith in government,” lawyer Ahilan Arulanantham replied.
The court is expected to rule by the summer. Their decision will not technically be a final ruling on the issue, but could have far-reaching effects for immigrants as litigation continues.
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 Assad’s government in late 2024.
Haitians joined the program in 2010 after a catastrophic earthquake and have been extended multiple times amid ongoing gang violence that has displaced more than a million people, according to court documents.
‘I’m scared’
Maryse Balthazar was on vacation in the U.S. when the earthquake hit Haiti. She has now been in the U.S. for 16 years with temporary legal status. She has two children and works as a nursing assistant to the elderly. That profession relies on Haitian immigrants like her and would be hobbled by a Supreme Court decision that allowed their status to end, an industry group said in court papers.
For Balthazar, losing those protections would be devastating. She lost her home in Haiti to the earthquake, and another house she could have lived in was destroyed in a fire, possibly due to gang involvement. “I’d be homeless,” she said. “I’m scared … it’s a fear we are all living with.”
Other immigration cases the high court is considering this year include Trump’s push to restrict birthright citizenship and the administration’s power to revive a restrictive asylum policy.
___
Associated Press writer Patrick Aftoora-Orsagos in Springfield, Ohio, contributed to this report.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate legal protections for migrants from war-torn and disaster-stricken countries under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. The outcome of this case could significantly impact the legal status of approximately 1.3 million individuals from 17 countries, primarily focusing on migrants from Haiti and Syria.
The case arose from appeals by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) against lower court rulings that blocked the immediate termination of TPS for these groups. If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the Trump administration, it could lead to the deportation of many individuals who have established lives in the U.S. after fleeing unsafe conditions in their home countries. The government argues that the homeland security secretary possesses the authority to end TPS and that courts should refrain from intervening in such executive decisions, emphasizing that these matters are traditionally under the purview of the political branches of government.
Conversely, lawyers representing the affected migrants argue that the process followed by the government to end TPS was flawed and that courts must have the ability to review the legality of such executive actions. The legal arguments center around whether the administration adhered to the necessary procedures outlined in the law before deciding to terminate TPS.
The stakes are particularly high for individuals from Haiti and Syria, as many have resided in the U.S. for years, contributing to the economy and community. The legal discourse highlighted personal narratives, including that of Maryse Balthazar, a Haitian migrant who has lived in the U.S. for 16 years and fears homelessness if protections are revoked. The potential consequences of returning to Haiti, where violence and instability persist, are dire, as illustrated by the tragic fate of several deported Haitian women whose lives were cut short.
Throughout the hearing, conservative justices on the court appeared to lean toward the administration’s perspective. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in particular, posed significant questions that seemed to probe the validity of the administration’s arguments and the implications of expanding executive power. Barrett, who has a personal connection to Haiti through her adopted children, expressed curiosity about the judicial review process and its relationship to the substantive issues at hand.
The Trump administration’s push to end TPS has been framed against a backdrop of alleged racial animus, particularly in light of previous comments made by Trump regarding Haitian immigrants. Critics argue that such biases may have influenced the decision-making process regarding TPS.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling, expected by summer, will not constitute a definitive resolution of the broader TPS issues but will likely set precedent with substantial implications for ongoing litigation related to immigration law. Other immigration-related cases currently before the court include efforts to restrict birthright citizenship and the administration’s attempts to reinstate a stringent asylum policy.
As this legal battle unfolds, the lives of those affected by the potential loss of TPS protections hang in the balance, characterized by fear and uncertainty about their safety and future in the U.S.
