Temporary Protected Status

Can Courts Review TPS Designations and Terminations?

“Justiciability” refers to whether a federal court has the authority to hear and decide a particular dispute. In the TPS context, Congress sharply restricted that authority.

The TPS statute provides: “There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A).

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Mullin v. Doe

In June 2026, the Supreme Court interpreted this judicial-review provision broadly in Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S. ___ (2026). The consolidated cases involved the termination of TPS designations for Haiti and Syria.

The plaintiffs argued that the Secretary of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act and failed to follow procedures required by the TPS statute. Among other things, they contended that the Secretary did not properly consult other federal agencies before terminating the designations.

The Supreme Court held that § 1254a(b)(5)(A) bars judicial review of all nonconstitutional challenges to a TPS designation, extension, or termination. According to the Court, the statutory term “determination” encompasses not only the Secretary’s final decision but also the process and subsidiary decisions leading to it.

As a result, a plaintiff generally cannot obtain judicial review merely by alleging that:

• The Secretary misunderstood or misapplied the TPS statute;

• The available evidence did not support the Secretary’s assessment of country conditions;

• The Secretary failed to follow a procedure required by the statute;

• The decision was arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act; or

• The Secretary failed to consult properly with other government agencies.

The Court acknowledged the traditional presumption that executive action remains subject to judicial review. Nevertheless, it concluded that Congress used language sufficiently clear to overcome that presumption for nonconstitutional TPS claims.

What About Constitutional Claims?

Mullin did not conclusively decide whether § 1254a(b)(5)(A) also bars every constitutional challenge to a TPS determination.

The Haitian plaintiffs argued that the administration terminated Haiti’s designation because of racial discrimination, in violation of equal-protection principles. The Supreme Court did not definitively decide whether the federal courts possessed jurisdiction over that claim. Instead, because the case concerned interim relief, the Court proceeded directly to whether the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits.

The Court assumed, without deciding, that the more demanding framework from Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. applied. It nevertheless concluded that the existing record was unlikely to prove that race motivated the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation. The Court therefore reversed the interim orders that had prevented the Haitian and Syrian terminations from taking effect.

Constitutional challenges may therefore remain possible, but Mullin leaves significant uncertainty about their justiciability. Any such claim must also overcome the substantial difficulty of proving that unconstitutional discrimination or another constitutional violation actually motivated the government’s decision.

What Mullin Did—and Did Not—Decide

The Supreme Court did not independently determine that conditions in Haiti or Syria had become safe. It did not decide whether terminating either designation represented sound humanitarian or foreign policy. It instead held that Congress largely committed TPS determinations to the Secretary of Homeland Security and largely insulated those determinations from judicial review.

The decision substantially limits the ability of TPS beneficiaries to ask a federal court whether DHS complied with the governing statute or the Administrative Procedure Act. Unless a viable constitutional claim exists, political oversight by Congress may provide the principal check on an unlawful, inadequately supported, or procedurally defective TPS determination.

Practical Consequences for TPS Holders

Because courts now have very limited power to review TPS terminations, beneficiaries should not assume that litigation will postpone or reverse the loss of protection. A person with TPS should consider other available immigration options before a designation expires or the government terminates it.

Depending on the person’s circumstances, those options may include asylum, adjustment of status, family-based immigration, employment-based immigration, a U visa, a T visa, relief under the Violence Against Women Act, cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

TPS holders should obtain individualized legal advice as early as possible. Waiting until a designation terminates may eliminate options, create employment-authorization problems, or expose a person without another lawful status or form of protection to removal proceedings.