On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mullin v. Doe, No. 25-1083 (consolidated with Trump v. Miot, No. 25-1084), ruling 6–3 that the federal government may terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Haiti and Syria without meaningful judicial review. The decision reversed lower-court injunctions that had blocked the terminations for years and strips federal courts of the power to review virtually all challenges to TPS termination decisions. Approximately 350,000 Haitian nationals and 6,000 Syrian nationals who have lived, worked, and raised families in the United States — many for over a decade — now face the loss of their lawful status and work authorization within weeks.
This post explains what the Court held, what it means for affected individuals, the timeline for TPS termination, and the legal options that may still be available. It is written for TPS holders and their families. If you currently hold TPS from Haiti or Syria, the most important thing you can do right now is consult an immigration attorney to evaluate your individual options before the termination takes effect.
This post provides general legal information, not individualized legal advice. Immigration law is fact-specific; your options depend on your particular circumstances. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for guidance on your case.
What the Supreme Court Decided
Mullin v. Doe addressed two consolidated cases challenging the Trump administration’s termination of TPS designations for Haiti and Syria. The central legal question was whether federal courts have the authority to review — and temporarily block — a decision by the Secretary of Homeland Security to terminate a country’s TPS designation.
The Judicial Review Bar: 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A)
The TPS statute contains a provision stating: “There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A). Writing for the 6–3 majority, Justice Alito held that this language is unambiguous and bars federal courts from reviewing any non-constitutional challenge to a TPS termination — whether the challenge is substantive (arguing the Secretary got the facts wrong about country conditions) or procedural (arguing the Secretary failed to follow required procedures in reaching the decision).
Lower courts had interpreted the statutory bar more narrowly, reasoning that it applied only to the substantive merits of the Secretary’s country-conditions determination, not to claims that the Secretary violated procedural requirements or acted arbitrarily. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation. The word “determination,” the majority reasoned, encompasses both procedural and substantive questions. Congress’s use of “any” reinforces the breadth of the bar.
The Equal Protection Claim
The Haitian plaintiffs raised a constitutional claim that the judicial review bar does not reach: they argued that Haiti’s TPS designation was terminated because of racial animus, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The majority acknowledged that constitutional claims survive the statutory bar but found that the Haitian plaintiffs’ equal protection claim was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The Court reasoned that the government offered a “race-neutral explanation” for its action — namely, that the current administration opposes the TPS program as historically implemented and has terminated every TPS designation that came up for renewal, regardless of the country involved.
Justice Kagan, writing in dissent (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson), argued that the majority’s treatment of the equal protection claim was insufficient. The dissent pointed to statements by the President that, in the dissenters’ view, demonstrated discriminatory purpose and could not fairly be characterized as race-neutral. The dissent argued that the lower courts’ injunctions should have remained in place pending full adjudication of the constitutional claim.
The Practical Effect
By reversing the lower-court injunctions, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the TPS terminations to take effect. The cases were remanded to the lower courts for final disposition, but the injunctions that had blocked the terminations for years are now dissolved. USCIS has already issued guidance implementing the terminations.
Who Is Affected
The decision directly affects approximately 356,000 individuals:
- Haiti TPS beneficiaries: approximately 350,000 individuals. Haiti was originally designated for TPS in January 2010 following the devastating earthquake. Many Haitian TPS holders have lived in the United States for 15 or more years, have U.S. citizen children, own homes, run businesses, and are deeply integrated into their communities.
- Syria TPS beneficiaries: approximately 6,000 individuals. Syria was designated for TPS in March 2012 due to the ongoing civil war. Syrian TPS holders have similarly built lives in the U.S. over more than a decade.
The decision also has implications beyond Haiti and Syria. By affirming the breadth of the statutory judicial review bar, Mullin v. Doe effectively insulates all future TPS termination decisions from court challenge. TPS holders from other designated countries — including El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sudan, and others whose designations remain in effect — should understand that similar terminations could follow with limited judicial recourse.
The Timeline: When TPS Ends
Following the June 25, 2026 decision, USCIS issued guidance on the wind-down of TPS for Haiti and Syria. Based on current USCIS announcements (verify at uscis.gov/tps for the most current dates):
- Syria: TPS-based Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) expire July 17, 2026
- Haiti: TPS-based EADs expire July 24, 2026
- TPS protection from removal ends on or shortly after these dates, pending final lower-court orders on remand
These dates may shift slightly. The lower courts must issue final orders on remand consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision, and USCIS may update its termination guidance. TPS holders should monitor the USCIS TPS page for updates and not rely on any single news source for final termination dates.
Once TPS terminates, affected individuals lose both protection from removal (the government may initiate removal proceedings) and TPS-based employment authorization. Employers will be notified that TPS-based work authorization is no longer valid, and affected workers may no longer legally continue employment under that authorization.
What TPS Termination Does — and Does Not — Mean
It is critical to understand what TPS termination means in practice:
TPS termination does NOT mean immediate deportation. The end of TPS removes your legal protection from removal and your work authorization. It does not mean ICE officers will arrive at your home the following day. Removal from the United States requires the government to issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court, schedule a hearing before an immigration judge, and obtain a final order of removal — a process that can take months to years given current court backlogs.
TPS termination DOES mean you no longer have lawful immigration status (unless you hold another form of status independently of TPS). Being present in the U.S. without lawful status exposes you to removal proceedings if encountered by immigration authorities and begins accruing unlawful presence, which can trigger future immigration bars.
TPS termination DOES end your work authorization. You may not continue working under a TPS-based EAD after the termination date. Doing so constitutes unauthorized employment, which can affect future immigration applications.
Legal Options for TPS Holders After Termination
Not every TPS holder has the same options. What is available to you depends on your individual facts: how you entered the U.S., your family ties, the conditions in your home country, your length of U.S. residence, whether you have U.S. citizen or LPR relatives, and other factors. Below is an overview of the most common forms of relief that may be available. Each requires individual legal assessment.
Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection
If returning to Haiti or Syria would place you at risk of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, you may qualify for asylum. Withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) are related but distinct forms of relief with different standards. Asylum, if granted, provides a path to a green card. Withholding and CAT provide protection from removal to the specific country but do not lead to permanent residence.
A significant issue for many TPS holders is the one-year filing deadline for asylum: applications must generally be filed within one year of the applicant’s last U.S. entry. Exceptions exist for “changed circumstances” (including changed country conditions or changed personal circumstances) and “extraordinary circumstances” that prevented timely filing. The termination of TPS itself may constitute a changed circumstance supporting a late filing. An attorney should evaluate whether an exception applies to your case.
Family-Based Immigration (I-130 Petition)
If you have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or adult child, a family-based immigrant petition (Form I-130) may provide a path to permanent residence. For spouses of U.S. citizens, the immigrant visa is immediately available (no visa bulletin wait). However, whether you can adjust status inside the U.S. depends on how you entered — a lawful entry (with inspection and admission) is generally required for adjustment under INA § 245(a).
The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Sanchez v. Mayorkas held that a grant of TPS is not an “admission” for purposes of adjustment of status. This means that TPS holders who originally entered without inspection cannot use their TPS grant to satisfy the “inspected and admitted” requirement for adjustment. If you entered without inspection, a family petition alone is generally insufficient to adjust inside the U.S. — consular processing or an INA § 245(i) grandfather clause may be required, and unlawful presence bars may apply upon departure. This is precisely the kind of fact-specific issue that requires attorney evaluation.
If an I-130 petition is already pending or approved, do not assume it will prevent removal — but it is a factor an immigration judge may consider. Consult an attorney about the interaction between your pending petition and potential removal proceedings. For more on the I-130 process, see our marriage-based green card and marriage green card timeline pages.
Cancellation of Removal (Non-Permanent Resident)
Under INA § 240A(b), a non-permanent resident who is in removal proceedings may apply for cancellation of removal if they can demonstrate:
- Ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States
- Good moral character during the 10-year period
- No disqualifying criminal convictions
- That removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative (U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, parent, or child)
Many long-term Haitian and Syrian TPS holders can satisfy the 10-year presence and good moral character requirements. The critical obstacle is the hardship standard, which is deliberately demanding — it requires showing hardship that goes beyond what would normally be expected from deportation. Having U.S. citizen children with medical, educational, or other specific needs strengthens this claim. Cancellation of removal can only be raised in immigration court proceedings; it cannot be filed proactively with USCIS.
U Visa (Victims of Crime)
TPS holders who have been victims of qualifying crimes in the United States and who assisted law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the crime may qualify for a U visa. The U visa provides immigration status and work authorization, and after three years, eligibility to apply for a green card. Processing times are very long, but filing a prima facie approvable U visa petition provides a basis for deferred action and work authorization during the pending period.
VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) Self-Petition
TPS holders who have experienced battery or extreme cruelty by a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent may self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act. A VAWA self-petition is filed without the abuser’s knowledge and, if approved, provides a path to permanent residence. For more information, see our VAWA and protection order guide and our TPS, DACA, and VAWA practice page.
Voluntary Departure
For some individuals who have no available form of relief in the United States, voluntary departure may be preferable to a formal removal order. A grant of voluntary departure allows you to leave the U.S. within a specified period without receiving a formal order of removal (which carries a 5- or 10-year bar to re-entry). However, departure itself — even voluntary — can trigger the 3-year or 10-year unlawful presence bars under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) if you accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence after TPS termination. Do not leave the United States without consulting an immigration attorney.
Critical Steps to Take Now
If you hold TPS from Haiti or Syria, the following steps are urgent:
- Consult an immigration attorney immediately. Your options depend on your specific facts — manner of entry, family ties, length of presence, country conditions, employment history, and criminal history. An attorney can identify forms of relief you may not be aware of. Contact us to schedule a consultation.
- Do NOT leave the United States without legal advice. Departure can trigger multi-year re-entry bars and may forfeit pending applications or potential relief in removal proceedings.
- Gather and preserve your documents. Collect copies of your TPS approval notices, EADs, tax returns, proof of continuous U.S. presence, evidence of family ties, and any other immigration documents. These will be essential for any relief application.
- Document your ties to the United States. If cancellation of removal or other forms of discretionary relief become relevant, evidence of community ties, employment history, property ownership, U.S. citizen children’s needs (educational, medical), and length of presence strengthens your case.
- Identify qualifying family relationships. If you have a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, parent, or adult child who has not yet filed an I-130 petition on your behalf, explore whether filing now is appropriate.
- Assess asylum eligibility. If conditions in Haiti or Syria would place you at risk of harm upon return, you may have an asylum claim. The changed circumstances created by TPS termination may support a late-filed application.
- Notify your employer. Employers will be required to reverify or terminate employment once TPS-based work authorization expires. If you obtain an alternative form of work authorization (a pending asylum-based EAD, an approved I-765 based on another status, etc.), provide updated documentation to your employer promptly.
Broader Implications of Mullin v. Doe
The decision has consequences well beyond Haiti and Syria.
All TPS designations are now vulnerable. By holding that TPS termination decisions are unreviewable, the Court has removed the primary legal mechanism that immigrant communities used to challenge and delay terminations. TPS holders from El Salvador (~240,000), Honduras (~90,000), Nepal, Nicaragua, Sudan, Somalia, and other countries should anticipate that their designations could be terminated with limited legal recourse. If you hold TPS from any designated country, proactive legal planning — identifying alternative forms of relief before a termination is announced — is now essential.
The equal protection pathway is narrow. While the Court acknowledged that constitutional claims survive the statutory bar, it set a demanding standard for success. A race-neutral explanation for the government’s action — even one as broad as “we oppose TPS as historically implemented” — may be sufficient to defeat an equal protection claim at the preliminary injunction stage. Future litigants will face a high evidentiary burden.
Legislative action remains the only structural remedy. Absent a change in the statutory framework by Congress, TPS termination decisions are now effectively final executive actions. Bills to provide a path to permanent residence for long-term TPS holders have been introduced in prior congressional sessions but have not advanced. The legal landscape after Mullin makes legislative solutions more urgent.
How Sanchez v. Mayorkas (2021) Compounds the Problem
The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Sanchez v. Mayorkas held unanimously that a grant of TPS does not constitute an “admission” for purposes of adjustment of status under INA § 245. This means that TPS holders who entered the United States without inspection — as many Haitian TPS holders did — cannot use their TPS grant to satisfy the “inspected and admitted or paroled” requirement for adjustment to permanent residence.
Combined with Mullin v. Doe, this creates a particularly difficult situation: many long-term TPS holders cannot adjust status inside the U.S. because of Sanchez, cannot maintain their TPS protection because of Mullin, and cannot leave the country to consular process without triggering unlawful presence bars. For these individuals, relief may only be available in removal proceedings (cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding, CAT) or through forms of relief that do not require lawful admission (U visas, VAWA). Individual legal assessment is essential.
TPS Holders in New York City
New York is home to one of the largest Haitian TPS populations in the country. The New York immigration court system (26 Federal Plaza and the Varick Street court) carries a substantial backlog, meaning that if removal proceedings are initiated, hearings may not be scheduled for months or longer. While the backlog does not constitute a legal defense, it provides a practical window during which affected individuals can prepare their cases and pursue available relief.
New York City residents should also be aware of city-level resources: the NYC Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs and various legal service providers offer free or low-cost consultations for individuals facing TPS termination. However, given the legal complexity and the stakes involved, representation by a qualified immigration attorney is strongly advisable for anyone who may have a viable path to relief.
