One month after the Supreme Court curtailed lower courts’ ability to block the Trump administration from revoking temporary deportation protections, people who stand to lose those protections are still engaged in legal battles, in part because the justices left the door open for TPS beneficiaries to bring constitutional challenges to the administration’s actions. Practitioners advising TPS beneficiaries facing termination now have new tools—and new terrain—in federal court.
What changed
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court in Mullin v. Doe held that Congress statutorily barred judicial review of all non-constitutional claims related to a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to terminate a country’s TPS designation. The ruling effectively shut down procedural challenges based on whether the Secretary complied with statutory consultation requirements.
But the Court did not foreclose all relief. Legal advocates representing migrants from a handful of countries have either repackaged their earlier procedural arguments into new constitutional claims or signaled plans to do so soon.
Specifically, attorneys representing migrants who fled South Sudan, Burma, Ethiopia and Yemen asked judges to issue new rulings blocking the policy changes based on an argument that the government’s actions would unconstitutionally deprive the migrants of their liberty and property interests, affecting nearly 10,000 people from those four countries combined.
The constitutional claims are being made under the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says the government cannot deprive a person of their “life, liberty or property” without first following protocols and procedures laid out in federal law. Work authorization permits and removal protections, lawyers for immigrants from Burma told the court, “are liberty and property interests that trigger procedural safeguards under the Constitution.”
Why it matters
The Mullin v. Doe decision appeared to give the Trump administration broad deference on TPS terminations. The Supreme Court’s decision said courts are barred from weighing claims that then-Secretary Kristi Noem violated the law by allegedly not adequately consulting with other agencies before she decided that countries no longer needed to be designated for the humanitarian relief.
However, the Court’s opinion left a narrow window: constitutional claims challenging the process or the deprivation itself remain available. This creates bifurcated litigation. Practitioners must understand that:
-
Statutory arguments are dead. Challenges to the Secretary’s failure to consult, statutory interpretation, and non-constitutional administrative law claims are judicially unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A).
-
Constitutional claims are live. Advocates are now framing TPS work authorization and removal protection as constitutionally protected “liberty” and “property” interests requiring due process before deprivation.
-
Country-specific strategies matter. The new litigation targets four countries (South Sudan, Burma, Ethiopia, Yemen) for renewed legal challenges—not the broader cohort.
Additionally, the Trump administration has claimed that the Supreme Court decision fully blessed its actions revoking the TPS designations. Practitioners should expect the government to argue the Constitution itself does not constrain the Secretary’s termination authority and that any due process analysis is merely procedural, not substantive.
Way forward
-
Assess constitutional hooks. If your client is a TPS beneficiary from South Sudan, Burma, Ethiopia, or Yemen facing termination, research whether they have documented reliance interests (e.g., home purchase, business license, family sponsorship) that strengthen the due process claim.
-
Monitor district court rulings. These four-country cases will reveal whether federal judges accept the liberty/property-interest theory and what procedural protections (notice-and-comment, opportunity to be heard) the due process analysis requires.
-
Explore legislative alternatives. Business leaders and lawmakers are looking for alternative ways to allow TPS beneficiaries to continue working after they lose their work permits under the program. Track Congressional TPS extension bills and state-level work authorization pathways in parallel.
-
Document statutory violations. While Mullin bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims, thorough documentation of the Secretary’s alleged failure to consult (as required by statute) may be evidence of constitutional bad faith or recklessness in a due process claim.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Fola Editorial is a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction before making decisions based on this information. Policy and litigation strategy change without notice. Verify all information against the primary sources linked above and the relevant federal statutes, regulations, and court decisions.