Mullin v. Doe
The Supreme Court ruled that a federal law barring "judicial review" of Temporary Protected Status decisions blocks courts from hearing most challenges to the government's ending of TPS for Haiti and Syria, and that Haitian immigrants were unlikely to prove the termination was driven by race.
The decision lets the government end TPS protections for Haitian and Syrian nationals immediately, undoing lower-court orders that had let them stay while their lawsuits continued, and signals that similar TPS terminations for other countries will be very hard to challenge in court.
“None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.”
The majority's reasoning for why the Haitian plaintiffs were unlikely to prove the TPS termination was racially motivated.
How it got here: Federal district courts in New York and D.C. blocked the TPS terminations; the Second and D.C. Circuits denied stays; the government sought certiorari before judgment and an emergency stay from the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Haiti and Syria each received Temporary Protected Status years ago because of dangerous conditions at home — a devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti and Bashar al-Assad's brutal crackdown in Syria. The Secretary of Homeland Security later ended both designations, citing improved conditions and the administration's broader opposition to long-running TPS programs. Haitian and Syrian nationals living here under TPS sued to block the terminations while their cases proceeded.
The question before the Court
Could Haitian and Syrian immigrants keep living in the U.S. while they sued to stop the government from ending their special humanitarian protection?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that most of their claims could not be heard in court at all, and that the one claim courts could reach (that race motivated ending Haiti's TPS status) was unlikely to succeed, so the immigrants were not entitled to stay while their lawsuits continued.
The TPS law bars "judicial review" of the Secretary's decisions on ending or extending TPS designations, and the Court read that bar broadly to cover not just the final decision but the steps leading up to it, including claims that required consultations were skipped. As for the Haitian plaintiffs' equal protection claim, the Court found that the administration's general hostility to TPS and immigration offered a race-neutral explanation for the termination, and that the statements cited were not overtly racial, so interim protection could not stand.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians living and working in the United States under TPS could now lose their legal status, work permits, and protection from deportation while their lawsuits continue. The ruling also makes it much harder for TPS holders from other countries to challenge future terminations in court.
What changes now
The cases return to the lower courts, but the ruling means the TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria can take effect immediately, ending the interim protections those courts had ordered. The underlying lawsuits will continue on a narrower track, since the Court found the challengers unlikely to succeed on the claims it could reach. Other pending TPS terminations for additional countries will likely be evaluated under the same reasoning.
What this does not decide
The Court did not finally resolve the underlying lawsuits or decide whether the TPS judicial-review bar validly blocks constitutional claims outright; it only found the challengers unlikely to succeed enough to justify pausing the terminations during litigation. It also did not revisit the Doe plaintiffs' own equal protection claim, which the lower court had already rejected.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Alito (author).
Separate writings (3). Justice Thomas (author of a concurrence), joined by Justice Barrett.
Dissent (3). Justice Kagan (author), joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson.
Concurrence — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas joined the majority in full but wrote separately to argue the Haitian plaintiffs' equal protection claim was also barred by the judicial-review statute, not just their statutory claims. He further argued that noncitizens have no equal protection rights against the federal government because the Equal Protection Clause applies only to states, and any Fifth Amendment due process protection would not cover a discretionary, revocable status like TPS.
Concurrence in part — Justice Gorsuch
Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined the majority opinion in full except for Part III-A, the section explaining why the Court could evaluate the likely merits of the equal protection claim without first resolving whether the lower courts had jurisdiction over it. The opinion does not state their specific reasons for declining to join that part.
Dissent — Justice Kagan
Justice Kagan argued the TPS statute's review bar only blocks review of the Secretary's ultimate determination, not separate claims that she skipped a required step like consulting other agencies about country conditions, so those claims should have been allowed to proceed. She also argued the President's own explicit statements about Haitians provided strong evidence that race was a motivating factor in ending Haiti's TPS status, meaning the plaintiffs deserved to stay in the country while litigation continued given the severe harm they would otherwise suffer. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court read the TPS law's bar on 'judicial review' of the Secretary's 'determination' about ending or extending a designation very broadly, holding that the word covers not just a final decision but the whole chain of steps leading to it, including claims that required agency consultations were skipped.
- The Court rejected three narrower readings offered by the challengers and lower courts: that the bar covers only substantive (not procedural) decisions, that it covers only assessments of country conditions, and that it covers only the Secretary's ultimate decision rather than any step along the way — reasoning that under general administrative law, an agency's earlier steps merge into its final, unreviewable action.
- Turning to the Haitian plaintiffs' equal protection claim, the Court assumed the Arlington Heights test applied, which asks whether a racially discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor behind a government decision, considering statements and context surrounding it.
- Applying that test, the Court found that none of the cited statements by the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and that the administration's general hostility toward TPS and immigration policy supplied a race-neutral explanation for ending Haiti's designation alongside every other country's designation that came up for renewal.
- Because the Haitian plaintiffs were therefore unlikely to prove race was a motivating factor, the Court concluded their equal protection claim did not support keeping the terminations on hold.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. (498 U. S. 479)
Court said that case turned on different statutory wording, not a general rule limiting review bars to single decisions.
Distinguishes Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians (476 U. S. 667)
Court found this case irrelevant because it involved differently worded Medicare review provisions and legislative history.
Reaffirms Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (429 U. S. 252)
Court applied this case's test for whether discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in a government decision.
Reaffirms Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. (578 U. S. 590)
Court relied on this case's rule that an agency's earlier steps merge into its final reviewable action.