- The Supreme Court upheld the termination of Temporary Protected Status for Haiti and Syria in a six-three decision.
- Courts generally cannot review non-constitutional challenges to TPS termination decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security.
- Over ten thousand Haitian nationals in Ohio face the loss of work authorization and legal status starting July 2026.
(OHIO) — The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the federal government to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haiti and Syria. In a 6-3 decision issued June 25, 2026, the Court held in Mullin v. Doe (U.S. June 25, 2026) that federal courts generally cannot review non-constitutional challenges to a TPS termination decision.
The ruling interprets INA § 244(b)(5)(A), which strips courts of jurisdiction over “any determination” of the Secretary regarding TPS designations, terminations, or extensions. Only constitutional claims survive the statutory bar.
The practical impact is immediate. The Department of Homeland Security may now proceed with winding down protections that had allowed Haitian and Syrian nationals to live and work legally in the United States.
TPS, established under INA § 244, grants temporary lawful status to nationals of countries experiencing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. The Secretary of Homeland Security designates countries for TPS and may terminate a designation when the underlying conditions improve.
The case originated when TPS holders challenged DHS’s termination of the Haiti and Syria designations. Plaintiffs argued the agency failed to follow proper procedure and did not adequately justify its decision. Lower courts had issued injunctions pausing the terminations, allowing protections to continue while litigation proceeded.
Those injunctions produced conflicting rulings among federal district and appellate courts regarding how broadly INA § 244(b)(5)(A) precludes judicial review. The Supreme Court resolved that split by holding the jurisdictional bar applies to all non-constitutional claims.
The majority opinion emphasized that INA § 244(b)(5)(A) was designed to give the Executive Branch broad discretion over TPS designations. Three justices dissented. The dissent argued that stripping courts of the ability to review even procedural violations leaves TPS beneficiaries without meaningful recourse if the agency fails to follow its own regulations. Initial reporting did not fully detail the dissenting opinion’s reasoning.
Ohio’s Haitian community faces concentrated effects. More than 10,000 Haitian nationals in Ohio hold TPS, with the population heavily concentrated in the Springfield area. Springfield has developed one of the state’s largest Haitian communities over the past several years.
Local organizations estimate the actual number of affected individuals may exceed official figures, as family members and community networks extend beyond TPS holders themselves.
The decision does not automatically remove anyone from the country. It removes the legal obstacle that prevented DHS from terminating TPS. Once TPS terminates, beneficiaries revert to whatever underlying immigration status they held before receiving TPS. If no other lawful basis exists, they revert to unauthorized status and become subject to removal proceedings under INA § 240.
The timing of the termination involves competing tracks. The Supreme Court’s ruling lifted the injunctions that had blocked DHS from ending TPS. USCIS has since indicated that July 1, 2026 should be treated as the expiration date for protections.
Other reporting notes the complete wind-down depends on how lower courts handle remaining proceedings and how quickly the agency moves to implement the termination. Beneficiaries should monitor USCIS announcements for official guidance on specific deadlines.
The loss of TPS carries cascading consequences. Employment authorization documents issued under INA § 244(a)(1) and 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(12) are tied directly to TPS status. When TPS ends, the underlying work authorization ends as well, unless the individual holds a separate, independent basis for employment authorization.
Affected workers may lose their jobs, which in turn affects housing stability, access to healthcare, and family support structures built during years of TPS-protected residence.
Employers also face compliance questions. When an employee’s work authorization expires, employers must reverify employment eligibility on Form I-9. Continuing to employ an individual whose authorization has lapsed can expose employers to civil and criminal penalties under INA § 274A. Employers with significant numbers of TPS employees should consult immigration counsel regarding verification obligations and timing.
Several legal options may remain available to TPS holders facing termination. Individuals should assess whether they qualify for any of the following: adjustment of status through a family-based or employment-based petition; asylum under INA § 208, if the applicant can establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground; U nonimmigrant status under INA § 214(p), for victims of qualifying crimes who assist law enforcement; T nonimmigrant status under INA § 214(o), for victims of trafficking; or other forms of humanitarian relief, including relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Each option carries distinct eligibility requirements, filing deadlines, and evidentiary burdens. None is automatic. Individuals who held lawful status before receiving TPS, or who have qualifying family relationships, may have stronger alternatives than those whose only lawful status was TPS itself.
Community organizations and immigration attorneys in Springfield have organized information sessions to help affected residents understand their options. These sessions typically cover eligibility screening for alternative forms of relief, guidance on document preservation, and referrals to legal service providers for individualized assessment. The Executive Office for Immigration Review maintains a list of recognized organizations and accredited representatives who provide low-cost or free immigration legal services.
The ruling in Mullin v. Doe narrows the legal avenues available to TPS holders who wish to challenge a termination. By holding that INA § 244(b)(5)(A) bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims, the Court insulated the Secretary’s termination decisions from most judicial scrutiny.
The only remaining basis for federal court challenge is a constitutional claim, such as a due process or equal protection argument. These carry a significantly higher burden of proof and are more difficult to establish than procedural or statutory challenges.
The decision may also influence pending and future litigation involving other TPS designations. Countries currently designated for TPS face periodic review and potential termination. The Mullin decision establishes that challenges to such terminations will face steep jurisdictional hurdles unless they involve constitutional claims. Immigration advocates have signaled they may pursue constitutional theories in future challenges, though the success of such strategies remains uncertain.
More than 10,000 Haitian TPS holders in Ohio now face the prospect of losing work authorization and protection from removal. Some may qualify for alternative relief. Many will not. Those who lose TPS and have no other lawful status become subject to removal proceedings in immigration courts overseen by the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Individuals in this situation should consult a qualified immigration attorney without delay. An attorney can evaluate all potential avenues for relief, confirm current immigration status, advise on filing deadlines, and provide representation before USCIS or EOIR. General information cannot substitute for case-specific legal advice.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
