The US Supreme Court refused to let the Trump administration immediately revoke Temporary Protected Status for more than 350,000 immigrants from Haiti and Syria. With no noted dissents, the justices moved the cases to the merits docket for full briefing, oral arguments in April, and deliberation, while keeping protections in place. This approach follows prior dissents by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticizing shadow docket use.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued an order deferring judgment on the Trump administration's request for emergency relief to end TPS designations for Haiti (350,000 beneficiaries) and Syria (6,000 beneficiaries). Instead of acting via the shadow docket, the court preserved lower court orders blocking the Department of Homeland Security's actions and scheduled the cases for regular review, with oral arguments set for April and a decision expected later, possibly in June. No dissents were noted from this action. This contrasts with earlier shadow docket decisions in May and October that allowed similar TPS terminations for countries including Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, where Jackson dissented, sometimes alone or with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. In one dissent, Jackson described the majority's approach as a “grave misuse” of the shadow docket, prioritizing “unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our government has promised them.” She argued the government showed no “concrete or irreparable injury” from delay, while immigrants faced “devastation” like job loss, family separation, and deportation. Jackson also criticized the lack of explanation for overriding lower courts' “reasoned and thoughtful written opinions.” TPS, created by Congress in 1990, permits immigrants from countries with dangerous conditions such as armed conflict or natural disasters to live and work legally in the US. Upon taking office, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sought to “vacate” existing designations prematurely, a move lower courts blocked for several countries, citing lack of legal authority and, in some cases, the president’s comments as evidence of animus. The administration argued TPS termination powers barred judicial review. This development maintains status quo protections amid ongoing litigation.
