Executive Power Surges, Courts Back Off

Trump’s Supreme Court win over Haitian TPS did not erase the racial bias fight, but it did clear the way for the policy to move forward.

Quick Take

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 for the Trump administration on Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians.
The majority said federal law bars most court review of those termination decisions.^[1]^[5]
The Court also said Haiti-based equal protection claims were unlikely to succeed.^[2]^[5]
Critics argued Trump’s public remarks and the record showed racial animus.^[10]^[18]

Court Gives Trump the Win

The Supreme Court’s June 25 ruling in Mullin v. Doe sided with the Trump administration and lifted lower court blocks on ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians.^[1]^[5] That means the Court did not stop the terminations. It accepted the administration’s view that Congress wrote the law to keep most of these disputes out of court.^[1]^[6]

For Trump supporters, the decision is another sign that the conservative majority is backing stronger control over immigration. The Court said the statute bars judicial review of the secretary’s TPS decisions, including the steps leading up to termination.^[1]^[3] That matters because lower courts had paused the terminations after finding possible legal problems and possible racial bias in the Haiti case.^[1]^[2]

What the Justices Rejected

The bigger fight was not just over legal process. It was also over motive. Haitian plaintiffs argued that Trump’s past comments about Haiti and Haitians showed racial bias, and a lower-court judge had said the decision was likely driven in part by hostility to nonwhite immigrants.^[1]^[2] The Supreme Court, however, said the equal protection claim was unlikely to win because the administration had a race-neutral explanation: it had opposed TPS as a program across the board.^[2]^[19]

That is why the headline accusation, that the Court “let Trump’s attacks slide,” is only partly true. The justices did not rule that ugly comments about Haitians were acceptable. They ruled that, under the TPS statute, courts could not review most of the termination decision and that the Haiti claim was not strong enough to block it.^[1]^[5] Justice Sonia Sotomayor and other liberal justices argued the law still allowed procedural challenges and that the record showed discrimination.^[1]^[18]

Why the Ruling Matters Now

The practical result is serious. The ruling clears the way for Haitian and Syrian TPS protections to end on the government’s timetable, which means work authorization and protection from removal can expire.^[3]^[5] Reuters reported that the case involved more than 350,000 Haitians and about 6,100 Syrians, making this one of the most important immigration rulings of the year.^[1]^[7] For families who followed the law and built lives here, the decision brings real uncertainty.

DHS Counsel: After 9 Years of Notice, TPS “Closing Time” Has Arrived — Feds Are Not Waiting

James Percival, DHS General Counsel, says long-expired temporary protections are finally ending and the administration is moving forward with removals now that the Supreme Court has… pic.twitter.com/Zh1eFJkumu

— News Picks Daily (@NewsPicksDaily) June 26, 2026

At the same time, the case shows how much power the Court now gives the executive branch when Congress writes broad limits on judicial review.^[1]^[6] Supporters of the ruling see that as a victory for the rule of law and for executive authority over immigration. Critics see it as a warning sign, because once courts step back, a future administration can move fast and face fewer legal checks. That tension is now at the center of the immigration debate.