The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case concerning the federal government’s efforts to end temporary protected status (TPS) designation for thousands of people living in the United States from Syria and Haiti.
Under the TPS program, individuals from certain countries are temporarily given legal status to live and work in the United States if they are unable to return to their home countries due to natural disasters, armed conflicts, or other extraordinary circumstances.
Relief is limited to 18 months, but the Secretary of Homeland Security can extend the duration of these protections if it is believed to be necessary and appropriate.
The case currently pending before the Court concerns the status of around 350,000 Haitian recipients and roughly 7,000 Syrian recipients in particular, stemming from a decision made by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to end protections.
After consultation with other agencies and a review of the conditions, then-Secretary Noem determined that Haiti and Syria no longer met the criteria for TPS.
Deportation protections were set to expire for impacted individuals roughly 60 days out from Noem’s announcement.
TPS holders filed lawsuits, however, alleging that the terminations were unlawful. The Supreme Court agreed to consider their challenge last month but allowed protections to remain in place while the cases were pending.
In a ruling last fall, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the federal government to end TPS for around 300,000 Venezuelans living in the United States under this program in an unsigned order staying a lower court ruling that blocked the Administration from moving forward with rolling back protections.
Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that they would have denied the Trump Administration’s request for emergency relief, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
During Wednesday’s oral arguments, questions were raised over whether or not the Homeland Security Secretary engaged in adequate consultation prior to making her decision eliminating TPS for Haitians and Syrians.
At issue in this case is also whether or not the courts have the authority to review the department’s decision in the first place.
While the Trump Administration has argued that these judgments are not subject to judicial review, the challengers have asserted that this is only true for one section of the law, not the entire measure.
They further contend that the Trump Administration failed to comply with the procedures required under the TPS program, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
Accusations have also been made by the Haitian plaintiffs that the federal government’s decision to end TPS to those from their country was based in racial animus.
The Trump Administration has called this allegation a “legal and factual nonstarter.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued before the Supreme Court Wednesday that the lower courts substituted “their own views for those of the Executive as to procedures, country conditions, and foreign-policy objectives.”
“[The consultation requirement] does not invite district courts to sit in judgment of when agencies have communicated enough,” Sauer said in court documents. “All the statute requires is that DHS solicit and receive other agencies’ views; Congress left the Executive Branch to resolve how that process happens and how much detail other agencies provide.”
Geoffrey Pipoly, who argued on behalf of the Haitian plaintiffs, suggested that the Homeland Security’s review of conditions was a “sham,” pointing toward the Level 4 travel advisories for both Syria and Haiti, which caution Americans against traveling to these countries due to kidnapping, terrorist activity, and unrest.
The plaintiffs went on to argue that a ruling in favor of the Trump Administration in this case would drastically reduce the opportunity for scrutiny of the federal government with respect to its actions concerning TPS going forward.
Syria was first marked for TPS in 2012 by former President Barack Obama due to “extraordinary and temporary conditions” relating to former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s actions regarding anti-government protests.
Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 by former President Obama as well due to a catastrophic earthquake affecting roughly one-third of the country’s population.
Following the assassination of the Haitian president in 2021, former President Joe Biden extended TPS for Haiti several times citing economic, health, and political crises.
The Supreme Court fast-tracked consideration of this case so that oral arguments could be heard before the end of their current session.
A ruling can be expected from the Justices in late June or early July.
Send every single one of them back, ASAP. Being an American these days means taking a backseat to foreign invaders.
Syrians and Haitians , people from two of the dirtiest , laziest , most criminally prolific countries in the world .
What could possibly go wrong by letting them infest OUR country .
Duh ……
Let’s put an end to the insanity BEFORE THESE MIDTERM ELECTIONS .
End the Filibuster ….get it done before the democrats get an opportunity to fu”k everything up again .
END THE INSANITY .
Here’s a novel thought for our Lefties who support open borders: The U.S. is NOT a dumping ground for 3rd world hell holes unless their goal is to turn us into one. We’ve had enough of your phony altruism.
Kafir ,
TELL THIS to all the AHoles that stand on the bridges around here , waving their Ukrainian and Palestinian flags ,
their stupid homemade signs , and telling the rest of us “ who and what matters “ .
Just wait until the Socialist Dynamic Duo Platner / Bellows win and bring in more Somalis, Syrians Gazans Iranians, and Chinese Tong Members . . .
Syrians got TPS in 2012 from Obama due to al-Assad’s actions regarding anti-government protests. Assad is gone.
Haitians got TPS in 2010 for an earthquake that affected one third of the population. The earthquake is long past.
Were either of these countries’ TPS status redesignated due to new conditions by DHS? Does the law require that we redesignate based on current conditions, or just assess whether the past conditions that merited TPS are still in effect?
We can’t take in every single war-torn population all over the world. Unfortunately, war is no longer an extraordinary circumstance.
Also, the earthquake did not affect all Haitians equally. Did we designate particular Haitians from particular areas for TPS? Did we designate Haitians via Chile or Peru as qualifying for TPS? Because a lot of them came after living for a period in South America. Or did those Haitians seek asylum rather than TPS?
Not all Syrians were targeted by Assad. Did we offer TPS to all of them, or just the protestors?
How do we tell who is really affected by the reasons we implemented TPS status?
This program seems like an entire crock of shit, ripe for potential abuse. We should abolish it entirely.