By Elia Lopez
The Supreme Court heard arguments about the initiative of the White House to eliminate legal protections for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, in a case that could leave a long way of people in the country without elegant status.
Possible impact on hundreds of thousands of migrants
If the administration reaches a favorable decision, it could move forward with revoking Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. While the case is resolved, the protections remain in effect.
The TPS program, In force since 1990, it offers elegant status and work authorization to people from countries affected by wars, natural disasters or other crises, with renewals of up to 18 months.
Origin of protections for Haiti and Syria
Haitian citizens have been able to access the TPS since the 2010 earthquakewhile the Syrians obtained it in 2012 during the civil war in which Bashar al-Assad ruled, who left power in 2024.
The then Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noemdetermined that both countries no longer met the conditions to maintain the status, considering that circumstances had improved.
Government arguments and elegant dispute
The frequent attorney Mr. John Sauer defended that decisions on TPS should not be reviewable by the courts, based on the interpretation of the federal law that regulates the program.
Sauer maintained that the regulations “prohibits judicial review of both the secretary’s final decision and each prior step.”
Lawyers opposing the measure argued that the cancellation of TPS was not properly consulted with federal agencies and was influenced by political motivations.
Debate on the limits of judicial power
During the hearing, the center of the debate was whether the Judiciary can review decisions of the Executive regarding TPS. Several conservative magistrates questioned the possibility of judicial intervention, while liberal judges showed greater openness to reviewing the case.
Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas They expressed doubts about the courts’ ability to intervene, citing the law’s broad language.
Plaintiffs’ arguments
The lawyer Geoffrey Pipoly, representative of the Haitian plaintiffs, maintained that the decision was influenced by animosity towards non-white immigrants and previous comments by President Donald Trump.
For his part, the lawyer Ahilan Arulananthamwho represents the Syrian plaintiffs, said that although the secretary has the authority to revoke TPS, he must do so in accordance with rules established by Congress.
The TPS in dispute
President Donald Trump’s administration has also sought to end TPS for other countries such as El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal and Afghanistan, which could affect ongoing litigation related to Somalia, Myanmar and Ethiopia.
Keep reading:
- Emmer questions Walz over powers after federal raids in Minnesota
- Mexico resorts to the elegant figure of “Friend of the Court” after the death of 15 migrants in ICE custody
- New York court blocks Trump policy of mandatory detention of migrants without bail
- Immigrants from key sectors are left in limbo due to Trump’s immigration measures
- TPS in the Supreme Court: Haitians and Syrians are not the only immigrants in dispute in the US