The Supreme Court’s private conference on the TPS Haiti & Syria cases concluded June 18. Orders from that conference are expected Monday, June 22, 2026 at 9:30 AM EDT. These orders may include the Court’s response to the Haitian nationals’ June 16 motion to dismiss the case without deciding it (DIG). This is the most consequential immigration moment for over 1.3 million TPS holders in decades. Bookmark this page — it will be updated within hours of any order.
- June 16, 2026: Haitian Nationals File Emergency Motion to Dismiss (DIG)
- The Two Cases Before the Supreme Court
- The Core Legal Question: Can Courts Review TPS Decisions?
- How the Justices Responded at Oral Argument
- Possible Outcomes and What Each Means
- Which Countries’ TPS Holders Are Most at Risk?
- What Every TPS Holder Must Do Before the Decision Comes Down
- SCOTUS Rules: TPS for Haiti & Syria Officially Terminated — June 25, 2026
June 16, 2026: Haitian Nationals File Emergency Motion to Dismiss (DIG)
On June 16, 2026, lawyers for Haitian TPS holders filed an emergency motion asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case without issuing a ruling on the merits — a procedural move known as “dismissing as improvidently granted,” or DIG. The filing cites newly discovered internal DHS documents that the lawyers say fundamentally undermine the government’s justification for terminating Haiti’s TPS designation.
The motion argues that career DHS staff recommended against ending Haiti’s TPS designation, but were overruled by a political appointee — and that these facts were not part of the record when the Court agreed to hear the case. According to the filing, the newly released documents “contain further evidence that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was a preordained outcome.” The lawyers argue the Court “lacks a firm factual foundation on which to judge the merits” until discovery is complete, particularly given the pending racial discrimination claim (which the government’s own solicitor general conceded at oral argument is judicially reviewable).
| Date | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2026 | SCOTUS oral arguments in Trump v. Miot & Mullin v. Doe | Justices appeared to lean toward government; Barrett pressed on racial discrimination reviewability |
| Jun 16, 2026 | Haitian nationals file DIG motion; cite newly discovered DHS documents showing “preordained” TPS termination | Could force Court to send case back to lower courts, buying months or years of protection |
| Jun 18, 2026 | SCOTUS private conference | Justices discussed the DIG motion and pending cases; administration expected to file response |
| Jun 22, 2026 — 9:30 AM EDT | SCOTUS orders expected from June 18 conference | May include Court’s response to DIG motion — the next critical moment for 1.3M TPS holders |
| Late June / Early July 2026 | Final SCOTUS decisions & orders for OT2025 term | If DIG denied, merits ruling could still come before term ends |
What Could Happen on June 22?
The Court has three main options when orders are released Monday morning:
1. Grant the DIG — The Court dismisses without deciding. The injunction blocking TPS termination stays in place. The case returns to lower courts. For TPS holders, this is the best near-term outcome — it provides months to years of continued protection while the record is developed.
2. Ask the government to respond — The Court requests a response from the administration before acting on the DIG motion. This delays the outcome but keeps the injunction in place in the meantime. Given the unusual nature of a post-argument DIG request, this is the most likely immediate step.
3. Deny the DIG and proceed to a merits ruling — The Court declines to dismiss and issues its decision on the merits. This could come as a full opinion any day before the term ends in late June or early July. Given that oral arguments already took place in late April, a decision is fully ready if the Court chooses this path.
Action required now: TPS holders should not travel internationally. Consult an immigration attorney about emergency contingency options, including any pending I-485 applications, and maintaining all documentation of continuous presence. The ruling — or a key procedural order — could come within 48 hours.
On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated cases — Trump v. Miot (Haiti) and Mullin v. Dahlia Doe (Syria) — that could determine the future of Temporary Protected Status for 1.3 million people from 17 countries living legally in the United States. A decision is expected in late June or early July 2026. The stakes could not be higher: the Trump administration is asking the Court not just to uphold the termination of TPS for Haitian and Syrian nationals, but to rule that TPS decisions are entirely unreviewable by federal courts — ever.
Here is a complete breakdown of what was argued, how the justices responded, what outcomes are possible, and what every TPS holder needs to do right now regardless of their country of origin.
The Two Cases Before the Supreme Court
The Court consolidated two separate lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s termination of TPS for two countries:
- Trump v. Miot (Haiti TPS): Approximately 335,000 Haitian nationals hold TPS in the United States. Haiti’s TPS designation was based on ongoing gang violence, political instability following the 2021 assassination of President Moïse, and the country’s inability to safely reabsorb large numbers of returnees.
- Mullin v. Dahlia Doe (Syria TPS): Approximately 6,100 Syrian nationals hold TPS, designated due to the ongoing armed conflict and humanitarian crisis in Syria that began in 2011 and has never fully resolved despite the fall of the Assad regime.
Together, these two cases represent a direct challenge to the Trump administration’s broad rollback of TPS designations and will set the precedent that governs TPS for all other nationalities currently protected.
The Core Legal Question: Can Courts Review TPS Decisions?
At the heart of both cases is a statutory interpretation question: does the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bar federal courts from reviewing the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decisions to terminate TPS designations?
The Trump administration’s Solicitor General argued at oral argument that the INA’s language — “the determination of the Secretary under this section with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state is not subject to judicial review” — means exactly what it says and prohibits any court from second-guessing any aspect of a TPS termination decision.
Attorneys for TPS holders countered that this unreviewability provision cannot shield decisions that violate constitutional protections, including equal protection, and that federal courts have always retained the power to review agency actions that exceed statutory authority or are based on unconstitutional motives.
How the Justices Responded at Oral Argument
The April 29 oral argument session revealed a Court sharply divided along ideological lines — not unusual given the Court’s current 6-3 conservative majority, but with some notable moments of skepticism from unexpected directions:
- Liberal justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson) pressed the government aggressively on whether the Haitian TPS termination was racially motivated, explicitly invoking the 2024 presidential campaign in which Trump and Vice President Vance amplified false claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were killing and eating pets. Justice Sotomayor asked whether a decision rooted in racial animus could truly be unreviewable by any court.
- Conservative justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) appeared more sympathetic to the government’s unreviewability argument, questioning whether courts should second-guess executive branch national security and foreign policy determinations embedded in TPS decisions.
- Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh asked pointed questions about the scope of the unreviewability clause, suggesting potential interest in a narrower ruling that upholds the termination without declaring all TPS decisions permanently unreviewable.
- Justice Barrett focused on the procedural question of whether lower courts applied the correct standard of review — potentially opening a path to a decision that sends the cases back without reaching the merits.
Possible Outcomes and What Each Means
Legal experts identify four broad possible outcomes when the decision is released in late June or early July 2026:
Outcome 1: Government Wins Broadly (Most Dangerous for TPS Holders)
The Court rules that TPS terminations are unreviewable and upholds the Haiti and Syria terminations. This would end TPS for 341,100 Haitian and Syrian nationals immediately and would strip federal courts of the power to review terminations for all 17 TPS countries. The more than 1.3 million total TPS holders would lose the legal backstop of judicial review, and the administration could proceed to terminate other TPS designations (Venezuela, El Salvador, Honduras, Ukraine, etc.) without court challenge.
Outcome 2: Government Wins Narrowly
The Court upholds the terminations but on narrower grounds — for example, finding the specific Haiti and Syria terminations were within the Secretary’s discretion without ruling that all TPS decisions are unreviewable. This would end TPS for Haiti and Syria but preserve the ability of TPS holders from other countries to challenge future terminations in court.
Outcome 3: Remand to Lower Courts
The Court sends the cases back to the lower courts with instructions on the correct standard of review, without deciding whether the terminations were lawful. This would delay resolution by years and leave current TPS holders in legal limbo while the cases work back up through the courts.
Outcome 4: TPS Holders Win
The Court rules that TPS terminations are subject to judicial review and that the Haiti and Syria terminations were unlawful. This would reinstate TPS for both countries and preserve court oversight of all future TPS terminations. Given the Court’s current composition, most legal experts consider this the least likely outcome.
Which Countries’ TPS Holders Are Most at Risk?
A broad government victory would remove judicial protection for TPS holders from all 17 currently designated countries. The largest populations at risk:
- Venezuela: ~600,000+ TPS holders — by far the largest group. Multiple court injunctions currently protecting Venezuelan TPS would be vulnerable.
- Haiti: ~335,000 holders directly in these cases.
- El Salvador: ~200,000 holders with a TPS designation dating to 2001 earthquakes.
- Honduras: ~80,000 holders originally designated after Hurricane Mitch.
- Nepal: ~15,000 holders.
- Syria: ~6,100 holders directly in these cases.
- Yemen: ~1,100 holders (whose termination was just blocked by a federal judge on May 1, 2026 — a ruling that a broad SCOTUS decision could effectively override).
What Every TPS Holder Must Do Before the Decision Comes Down
- Renew your TPS and EAD now. Do not wait until your current EAD expires. Processing times have increased significantly. If you are eligible to renew, file immediately regardless of this case’s outcome — a current EAD offers protection regardless of what the Court decides.
- Pursue every alternative immigration pathway available to you. TPS does not lead to a green card. If you have a U.S. citizen or permanent resident family member, an employer willing to sponsor you, or any other basis for a visa petition or adjustment of status, consult an immigration attorney now. A SCOTUS ruling against TPS holders could come with a relatively short wind-down period.
- Do not travel internationally. With both TPS and Advance Parole under attack simultaneously, any international departure by a TPS holder carries extreme re-entry risk. This is not the time to travel.
- Prepare documentation for an emergency. Gather proof of years of physical presence in the U.S., tax returns, employment records, and all immigration history. This documentation supports both future immigration applications and potential habeas corpus petitions if the worst outcome occurs.
- Monitor the decision release. Supreme Court decisions for the current term are released between late May and late June (with a final decision day in early July if needed). The TPS cases are among the most watched of the term. Check scotusblog.com for real-time release notifications.
Related Guides
- Federal Judge Blocks TPS Termination for Yemen 2026
- Third-Country Deportations 2026: Who Is at Risk & Your Legal Rights
- Asylum in the United States: Complete Guide to Applying and Qualifying
- Trump ICE Enforcement Strategy Shift 2026
- One Big Beautiful Bill: Complete Immigration Guide
SCOTUS TPS case 2026 — possible outcomes and which 1.3 million TPS holders are at stake.
SCOTUS Rules: TPS for Haiti & Syria Officially Terminated — June 25, 2026
The Supreme Court issued its ruling in Mullin v. Doe on June 25, 2026 — the final week of the Court’s term. In a 6–3 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the conservative majority held that the president has unreviewable authority to terminate Temporary Protected Status designations, and that federal courts cannot intervene to delay or block TPS terminations during ongoing litigation. The ruling effectively ends TPS protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals living in the United States.
What the Court Held
Justice Alito’s majority opinion rested on two core conclusions. First, the TPS statute’s judicial review bar is broad enough to prevent courts from reviewing the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination to terminate a TPS designation — even when challenged as discriminatory or arbitrary. Second, the equal protection challenge failed: statements by President Trump and former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem about Haiti, while widely condemned, “could rest on race-neutral justifications.” Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, quoting Trump’s description of Haiti as a “filthy, dirty, disgusting” country and arguing the racial animus was impossible to overlook.
Immediate Impact for TPS Holders
| Nationality | TPS Holders Affected | Work Auth | Recommended Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haiti | ~350,000 | EADs expire at wind-down | Consult immigration attorney immediately; explore asylum, AOS, or cancellation of removal |
| Syria | ~6,000 | EADs expire at wind-down | Explore asylum or other humanitarian relief options |
TPS terminations do not take effect the instant the Court rules — DHS must publish a wind-down timeline, which typically includes a notice period. However, with judicial review now foreclosed, affected individuals cannot rely on further court intervention to extend their protections. Immigration attorneys strongly advise Haitian and Syrian TPS holders to consult counsel immediately to evaluate alternative relief, including asylum, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status through a family or employer petitioner, or U/T visa eligibility.
What Oral Arguments Signaled
When the Court heard oral arguments on April 29, 2026, the six conservative justices appeared broadly sympathetic to the government’s position that TPS termination decisions are unreviewable by courts under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts pressed plaintiffs’ counsel on whether the statute’s language truly permitted judicial review. The three liberal justices — Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson — argued that leaving TPS decisions entirely to executive discretion with no check would be unprecedented and constitutionally problematic.
A ruling in the government’s favor would be the most sweeping possible outcome: courts could never second-guess a president’s TPS designations or terminations, regardless of the facts. A narrower ruling might uphold the specific terminations for Haiti and Syria on the merits without foreclosing all future review. A ruling for the plaintiffs would reinstate TPS protections — an outcome seen as unlikely given the oral argument dynamics.
| Possible Outcome | Probability (expert assessment) | Effect on TPS Holders |
|---|---|---|
| Government wins — full unreviewability | ~50–60% | TPS for Haiti & Syria terminated; no court remedy. Other TPS countries at risk if admin acts. |
| Government wins — narrow ruling on facts | ~25–35% | Haiti & Syria TPS terminated but courts retain review power for future cases |
| Plaintiffs win — TPS restored | ~10–15% | TPS for Haiti & Syria reinstated; administration must follow APA process to terminate |
What TPS Holders Should Do Right Now — Before the Ruling
Regardless of your country of origin, immigration attorneys universally advise TPS holders to take these steps before the SCOTUS decision drops:
- Consult an immigration attorney immediately. If you do not have one, contact your local legal aid organization or AILA referral service. Free consultations are available through many nonprofit immigration clinics.
- Identify alternative immigration status options. Many TPS holders have U.S. citizen or permanent resident family members who could petition for them. Others may qualify for an employer-sponsored visa (H-1B, O-1, EB-2/EB-3). Do not wait for the ruling to explore these paths.
- Renew your EAD even if your TPS is pending. Work authorization tied to TPS may lapse quickly after a ruling. Make sure your Employment Authorization Document (EAD) is current.
- Gather all documentation of your U.S. ties. Tax returns, employment records, school enrollment, property ownership, and U.S.-born children’s birth certificates will all be relevant in any future removal proceedings or appeals.
- Do not travel internationally. Departure from the U.S. could be treated as abandonment of TPS status and make reentry impossible after a ruling.
- Know your rights in removal proceedings. If TPS is terminated, affected individuals typically receive a notice to appear before an immigration judge and have the right to a hearing. This process takes months to years — you will not be deported overnight.
Countries Still Under TPS — Status as of June 2026
| Country | Approx. TPS Holders | Current Status | SCOTUS Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haiti | ~335,000 | Terminated — pending ruling | 🔴 Directly at stake |
| Syria | ~11,000 | Terminated — pending ruling | 🔴 Directly at stake |
| Venezuela | ~600,000+ | Designated; admin has sought termination in lower courts | 🟠 High risk if ruling is broad |
| El Salvador | ~250,000 | Active; renewal in process | 🟠 High risk if ruling is broad |
| Honduras | ~76,000 | Active | 🟡 Moderate risk |
| Lebanon | ~10,000 | Auto-extended through Nov 27, 2026 | 🟡 Lower short-term risk |
| Ukraine | ~285,000 | Active | 🟡 Moderate risk |
June 16, 2026: Motion to Dismiss Filed — DHS Documents Raise Misconduct Allegations
In a dramatic eleventh-hour move, attorneys representing more than 330,000 Haitian TPS holders filed a motion on June 16, 2026, asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as improvidently granted — a procedural mechanism (called a “DIG”) that would send the matter back to lower courts without a merits ruling. The motion was filed just days before the expected end-of-June decision.
What the New Documents Show
Newly released internal DHS documents — disclosed after oral arguments concluded — allegedly show that:
- The termination was preordained: Internal communications indicate the decision to end Haiti’s TPS designation was determined before any review process began, contradicting DHS’s assertions to the Court.
- State Department was never consulted: Despite legal requirements, the documents show Secretary Noem did not consult the State Department before terminating Haiti’s TPS — a procedural violation.
- Career staff overruled: Immigration career officials recommended against termination, but were overridden by a political appointee — suggesting the decision was politically, not factually, driven.
- ACLU and immigration advocates allege DHS lied: The ACLU of Northern California stated that the documents “confirm that DHS lied about its actions when terminating TPS for Haitians.”
What a DIG (Dismissal as Improvidently Granted) Would Mean
| Scenario | Effect on Haitian TPS Holders | What Happens Next |
|---|---|---|
| SCOTUS grants DIG (dismisses) | Case returns to lower courts; TPS termination remains blocked for now | Litigation restarts at circuit level; TPS holders gain more time |
| SCOTUS denies DIG (rules on merits) | Decision expected late June/early July 2026 | Could end TPS for 330,000+ Haitians OR uphold protections |
| SCOTUS orders additional briefing | Decision delayed; TPS protections continue during briefing period | Case could stretch into fall 2026 term |
The Supreme Court has not yet responded to the motion. If the justices agree to dismiss, it would be a significant victory for TPS holders — buying months or even years of additional legal protection while the case is reconsidered at the appellate level. If dismissed, the underlying injunction blocking TPS termination would likely remain in place.
What TPS holders should do right now: Do not travel internationally. Consult an immigration attorney immediately about your specific situation. Maintain all documentation of continuous presence. Monitor this page — we will update within hours of any Supreme Court response to the motion.
This page will be updated immediately when the Supreme Court issues its decision. Bookmark this article and check back — the ruling could come on any day the Court issues opinions between now and early July 2026.
