The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration can end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Haiti and Syria, while also allowing restrictions on asylum claims by migrants who have not entered US territory.
In a 6-3 decision, the court overturned lower court rulings that had blocked the administration from ending TPS for about 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians.
TPS allows individuals from countries affected by war or natural disasters to live and work legally in the United States for up to 18 months, subject to renewal. During that period, they cannot be removed or detained solely because of their immigration status.
The United States granted TPS to Haitians following the 2010 earthquake and to Syrians after the outbreak of civil war in 2012.
Court clears way for TPS termination
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the law governing TPS prevents courts from reviewing government decisions on the programme.
He also said the Haitian migrants challenging the decision were unlikely to prove that the administration’s actions were racially discriminatory or violated equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan argued that the decision to end TPS protections was racially motivated, saying statements linked to the policy suggested race played a role in the administration’s actions.
The ruling allows the Trump administration to remove legal protections for TPS recipients, potentially exposing them to deportation. The decision could also affect TPS holders from other countries.
Jill Habig, chief executive officer and founder of Public Rights Project, said the ruling placed hundreds of thousands of people at risk. She warned it could separate families, affect local economies and force people to return to countries facing violence, instability and humanitarian crises.
Asylum ruling also favours administration
In a separate 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court held that migrants stopped on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border are not entitled to apply for asylum until they have physically entered the United States.
Justice Alito described the case as straightforward, saying a person cannot be considered to have arrived in the United States before entering the country.
The Trump administration argued that federal law permits asylum applications only after a migrant has arrived in the United States, while lawyers representing immigrant advocacy groups maintained that asylum seekers should qualify once they reach a port of entry.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, warning that the ruling could lead to more dangerous attempts to cross the border illegally and increase the risk of deaths.
The requirement for asylum seekers to be physically present in the United States was first introduced in 2016 under the Obama administration through the ‘metering’ policy, which limited the number of asylum requests accepted each day at ports of entry. The policy was rescinded in 2021 under President Joe Biden, but the Supreme Court’s ruling allows the Trump administration to revive it.
