Haitian citizens who are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status came to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, asking the justices to throw out a dispute over whether the Trump administration can end the program for Haiti. The justices heard oral arguments in the case in late April, but the Haitian citizens told the court on Tuesday that it should toss the case without deciding it on the merits, based on “newly discovered facts” bearing directly on their claims.
What changed
The Haitian citizens have filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, rather than decide the merits of whether the Trump administration can end TPS for Haiti. In particular, the Haitians contended that a July 1 notice by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announcing her intent to end the TPS program for Haiti “relied on a knowingly false statement.”
Congress enacted Temporary Protected Status in 1990, giving DHS power to designate a country’s citizens as eligible to remain in the U.S. and work if they cannot return safely because of natural disaster, armed conflict, or other “extraordinary and temporary” conditions. In 2010, shortly after a powerful earthquake, Janet Napolitano designated Haiti under TPS, with the designation initially lasting 18 months but repeatedly re-extended until 2025.
Why it matters
The motion attacks the procedural and factual foundation of the termination notice itself. If the Court accepts the Haitians’ argument that the DHS Secretary made knowingly false statements in the July 1 notice, it could undermine the entire legal basis for the termination and potentially expose the decision to arbitrary-and-capricious review—exactly what the government argued courts cannot conduct.
For TPS beneficiaries and practitioners, the outcome shapes whether future TPS terminations must survive scrutiny of the factual record and procedural compliance. The government has argued that DHS decisions on TPS designation and termination are unreviewable; a ruling based on alleged false statements could narrow that immunity and strengthen the hand of future challengers.
The Supreme Court’s decision whether to dismiss or proceed will clarify whether newly discovered factual disputes about the Secretary’s reasoning can override judicial reluctance to second-guess immigration determinations.
Way forward
- If you represent TPS beneficiaries, monitor the Supreme Court’s decision on this motion closely. A dismissal or narrow ruling may reduce litigation risk; a decision on the merits could establish binding law on judicial review of future terminations.
- Document and preserve evidence of any factual inaccuracies in government notices affecting your clients’ status, particularly statements about country conditions.
- Consult current case law and DHS guidance before filing any new TPS termination challenges, as the Supreme Court’s ruling will be precedential.
- Plan for multiple scenarios: the Court could dismiss the case, decide on narrow procedural grounds, or issue a broad ruling on reviewability.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. We are a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and highly fact-specific. Always consult with a licensed immigration attorney to assess your individual situation and receive legal advice tailored to your circumstances. Immigration policy can change without notice; verify all information against the primary source documents and current agency guidance linked above before relying on it for case strategy or client advice.