On June 25, the Supreme Court split 6-to-3 on whether the Trump administration can deport TPS holders and turn away migrants seeking asylum. The ruling raises concerns for refugees and challenges whether the administration’s agenda is racially motivated.

Congress created Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 1990 to provide temporary legal protection to people fleeing to the US for refuge. In early 2025, the Trump administration stopped TPS for Haiti, Syria, and other countries, following a more restrictive approach. In Mullin vs Doe, a case regarding the termination of TPS, the lower courts argued that the Trump Administration did not properly follow the procedures set by Congress to designate or rescind TPS. The lower courts believed that there should have been multiple agencies in on the decision. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal courts did not have the ability to review the DHS’s decisions, giving the administration clearance to terminate TPS for many.

There is discourse among Supreme Court justices on whether Trump’s actions were racially motivated. When Haitian immigrants claimed that Trump’s immigration policies were discriminatory, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that their claims were “insufficient to show that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was based on the race of the Haitian people.“ In contrast, Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent stated that “race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.” Justice Alito’s assertions represented the majority of the Supreme Court, while Justice Kagan’s dissent was joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson.

“(8 USC 1158: Asylum) can apply for asylum. In 2016, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was found to be turning away people at the border because of capacity concerns, preventing them from being able to apply for asylum. The Ninth Circuit, which reviews district court decisions, appealed to the Supreme Court that the CBP was obligated to process people into the asylum system if they arrived at the port entries, regardless of whether they were on U.S. soil. However, in Mullin vs Al Otro Lado’s 6-to-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that there is indeed a difference between “arrives in” and “arrives at” the border. Thus, metering people at the border has barred many from stepping onto U.S. soil to apply for asylum.

Approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians in the US rely on TPS, and there is a possibility that they will be deported following the new Supreme Court ruling. TPS advocates worry that these deportations could trigger a severe healthcare worker shortage.

The Trump administration has increased its authority over migration throughout the country. Although the effects of these Supreme Court rulings are unclear, the administration holds the power to potentially deport TPS holders based on the DHS’s designations.