Supreme Court weighs Trump attempt to remove protections from thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the White House’s push to remove legal protections of Haitian and Syrian immigrants in the United States, a case that has the potential to remove the legal status of thousands of migrants.

If the administration wins the case, it would be able to continue with its plan to strip temporary protected status, or TPS, from about 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. In the meantime, the protections remain in place.

The TPS program, in place since 1990, provides humanitarian relief to people from countries reeling from war, natural disasters or other catastrophes. Recipients have legal status in the U.S. and can apply for work authorization for up to 18 months, subject to extensions.

People from Haiti have been able to apply for TPS since a catastrophic earthquake rocked the country in 2010. Syrians became eligible in 2012 during a civil war when the country was ruled by dictator Bashar al-Assad, who fell from power in 2024.

Then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem concluded that Haiti and Syria no longer met any of the conditions for protected status, saying conditions in both countries had improved.

President Donald Trump's administration has sought to revoke TPS for people from other countries, too, including El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal and Afghanistan. The Supreme Court ruling could affect litigation pending in lower courts involving countries such as Somalia, Myanmar and Ethiopia.

Much of Wednesday's arguments centered on whether there is a role for the judiciary to review an administration's decision to terminate temporary protected status at all.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, maintained that Noem’s decisions on revoking TPS designations are not reviewable in court.

In his opening remarks, Sauer pointed to part of the federal law governing TPS, which he asserted "bars judicial review of both the secretary’s ultimate decision whether to designate, extend or terminate and of each antecedent step along the way to that determination."

Lawyers arguing against the administration claimed that Noem did not adequately consult with departments and agencies while determining to terminate the programs. One of the lawyers argued that Trump's comments about immigrants indicated that the administration moved to terminate temporary protected status for Haitians because of Trump's "racial animus."

Geoffrey Pipoly, the lawyer arguing on behalf of the Haitian plaintiffs, argued that “the true reason for the termination is the president’s racial animus towards non-white immigrants and bare dislike of Haitians in particular.”

"The president has disparaged Haitian TPS holders specifically, as undesirables from a quote, ' shithole country ,' and days after falsely accusing them of, quote, 'eating the dogs' and 'eating the cats' of Americans, he vowed that he would terminate Haiti’s TPS, and that is exactly what happened," Pipoly said.

Ahilan Arulanantham, the lawyer arguing on behalf of the Syrian plaintiffs, said that while the Homeland Security secretary is allowed to terminate temporary protected status, "he must turn square corners" and "follow the rules Congress set."

Multiple conservative justices pressed Arulanantham with questions about the ability of the courts to challenge a TPS determination.

Justice Samuel Alito pointed to the meaning of "determination," saying, "If we apply ordinary meaning of that term here, I really don’t understand how you can prevail."

Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas pressed Arulanantham on what other issues are reviewable, noting that the language in the statute "seems pretty broad."

The three liberal justices appeared poised to side against the administration. They pressed Sauer on Trump's prior derogatory comments about migrants.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to Trump's 2018 statement that Haiti was a “shithole country," saying she did not see how Trump’s statements were not “showing that a discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.”

Sauer argued that Trump's comments did not relate to race, which Sotomayor objected to, noting that Trump criticized migrants from largely non-white countries while wishing the U.S. could take more migrants from European countries.

Last year, the Supreme Court in two separate decisions allowed the administration to revoke the same kind of legal status from 600,000 Venezuelans in the U.S. The Trump administration argued in court papers in the new cases that those actions set a precedent that lower courts should have applied to the Haitian and Syrian immigrants, too.

Though the Trump administration argued that Syria and Haiti no longer needed TPS status, the State Department currently tells Americans not to travel to either country, with both included on its “do not travel” list.

“ Haiti has been under a State of Emergency since March 2024," the department says. "Crimes involving firearms are common in Haiti. They include robbery, carjackings, sexual assault, and kidnappings for ransom.”

As for Syria, the department says that “no part of Syria is safe from violence.”

Without protected status, affected people are subject to deportation through the normal legal process. But they can seek other avenues to remain in the U.S., for example, by claiming asylum.

A Washington-based judge concluded in February in a case brought by TPS holders that Noem had failed to follow the correct procedures in terminating the legal status for Haitians and said there was evidence the decision was based on “anti-black and anti-Haitian animus.”

The judge pointed, among other things, to an X post from December in which Noem, referring to immigrants in general, said: “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE,” as well as Trump’s “shithole country" statement.

In the other case, a federal judge in New York ruled in November in favor of seven Syrians who either already received legal status under the program or have applied for it.

In both cases, appeals courts declined to put the lower court decisions on hold.

In urging the court not to intervene, lawyers representing the Haitian challengers said that people would “risk death” if they were sent back to the Caribbean nation. They also pointed to comments made by Trump during the 2024 election baselessly claiming that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people’s pets as evidence of alleged racial bias.

Lawyers for the Syrian plaintiffs invoked the current instability in neighboring Iran in arguing that conditions in the region are unsafe, and questioned why the Trump administration had filed with the court on an emergency basis, seeking such an urgent decision, when some Syrians with TPS have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to immediately allow it to revoke TPS for both groups of plaintiffs, but the justices in March deferred a decision on that front, instead deciding to hear oral arguments and issue a detailed ruling on the legal issues.

As of March 2025, about 1.3 million people from 17 countries had TPS, according to the National Immigration Forum , an immigrant advocacy group.

Earlier this month, the House broke with Trump by voting to reinstate TPS for Haitians, with a handful of Republicans joining Democrats. But the Senate has yet to act and the White House has vowed to veto any legislation.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com