By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
In Mullin v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts generally cannot review non-constitutional challenges to DHS decisions ending, extending, or designating countries for Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. The Supreme Court TPS ruling does not automatically deport every TPS holder. But it makes broad court challenges to TPS terminations much harder and shifts the focus to individual immigration options: green cards, asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, employment sponsorship, and other case-specific relief.
For TPS holders from Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nepal, Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, Burma, and other affected countries, the message is urgent: do not wait for another nationwide lawsuit to protect you. You need an individualized immigration strategy now.
Schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group or call 1-800-808-4013.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mullin v. Doe is about judicial review.
The Court interpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A), which says there is “no judicial review” of TPS designation, termination, or extension determinations.
That means TPS holders may have far fewer opportunities to stop DHS from ending TPS through broad Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits.
The ruling affects Haiti and Syria first, but its logic may reach other TPS countries.
The Supreme Court TPS ruling has significant implications for families and employers as well.
TPS holders should immediately review whether they qualify for a family-based green card, employment-based green card, asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, cancellation of removal, or another immigration option.
Employers with TPS-authorized workers should review Form I-9 reverification rules carefully, but should avoid premature termination, document abuse, or discriminatory practices.
Temporary Protected Status, often called TPS, is a humanitarian immigration protection for people already in the United States who cannot safely return to their home country because of war, natural disaster, or extraordinary temporary conditions.
TPS can provide two critical protections:
But TPS is not the same as a green card. It does not automatically lead to lawful permanent residence. A TPS holder who wants permanent status must qualify through a separate immigration path, such as marriage to a U.S. citizen, family sponsorship, employment sponsorship, asylum-related protection, or another legal remedy.
For more on changing from TPS to permanent residence, see our guide: Can I Change TPS to a Marriage Green Card?
The Court ruled that the TPS statute blocks federal courts from reviewing most non-constitutional claims challenging DHS decisions to terminate TPS.
The key statutory language is found in 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A):
“There is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.”
Today, that authority is exercised by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion read that language broadly. The Court said the word “determination” includes not only the final decision to end TPS, but also many of the procedural steps leading to that decision.
That matters because TPS lawsuits often argued that DHS failed to follow required procedures, failed to consult properly with other agencies, ignored country conditions, or acted arbitrarily under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that plaintiffs could avoid the TPS judicial-review bar by labeling the challenge as procedural rather than substantive.
In practical terms, the Court said: if the lawsuit is really about how DHS decided to end TPS for a country, federal courts usually cannot review that claim unless it raises a viable constitutional issue.
Most people will first read Mullin v. Doe as a Haiti and Syria case. That is understandable. Hundreds of thousands of Haitian TPS holders and thousands of Syrian TPS holders have lived, worked, paid taxes, raised children, and built lives in the United States.
But the deeper issue is broader.
According to the American Immigration Council, approximately 1.3 million people had TPS in the United States as of March 2025. KFF reports that TPS holders came from 17 countries, with the largest populations from Venezuela, Haiti, El Salvador, Ukraine, and Honduras.
That means Mullin is not just about one administration, one country, or one lawsuit. It is about who gets to decide the fate of the TPS program: DHS, Congress, or the federal courts.
The Supreme Court’s answer was clear: for non-constitutional claims, Congress sharply limited the role of the courts.
Congress created TPS in the Immigration Act of 1990. Before TPS, humanitarian protection often came through executive discretion, including Extended Voluntary Departure.
When Congress created TPS, it built a formal statutory system. DHS must review country conditions, consult with appropriate government agencies, and decide whether a country should be designated, extended, or terminated.
But Congress also wrote a powerful jurisdictional limit into the statute.
That limit reflects a hard separation-of-powers choice. Decisions about whether a foreign country is safe enough for return often involve diplomacy, foreign affairs, national security, humanitarian assessment, and rapidly changing conditions abroad. Congress placed those country-wide decisions mainly in the Executive Branch.
The Supreme Court did not decide whether ending TPS for Haiti or Syria is wise, humane, or consistent with actual country conditions. It decided a narrower legal question: did Congress allow courts to review these DHS determinations through ordinary statutory and APA claims?
The Court’s answer was no.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed.
The dissent viewed “determination” more narrowly. In that view, the statute prevents courts from second-guessing the final country-wide TPS decision, but it does not prevent courts from reviewing whether DHS followed mandatory procedures before reaching that decision.
That difference matters.
The majority said procedural decisions merge into the final TPS determination and are therefore barred from review.
The dissent said Congress required certain procedures for a reason, and courts should be able to enforce those procedures even if they cannot decide whether TPS should ultimately continue.
For immigration lawyers, that is the core divide in Mullin: not whether TPS is important, but whether courts can enforce the process Congress created.
No.
The Court’s ruling is strongest against non-constitutional claims, especially APA claims challenging DHS’s reasoning, consultation, country-condition review, or procedural steps.
The Court did not fully resolve every possible constitutional claim. The Haitian plaintiffs raised an equal protection claim, arguing that the TPS termination was racially motivated. The Court assumed, without fully deciding, that such a claim could be considered, but concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the preliminary record.
Justice Thomas wrote separately and suggested that even constitutional claims may be barred. No other Justice joined that part of his reasoning.
So constitutional litigation is not entirely over. But after Mullin, TPS plaintiffs face a much steeper climb.
TPS holders should not assume that a future court order will preserve their status.
The most important step is a personal immigration review. A lawyer should evaluate:
Family-based green card options, including marriage to a U.S. citizen or sponsorship by a U.S. citizen adult child.
Employment-based immigration options, including PERM labor certification, national interest waiver, extraordinary ability, or employer sponsorship.
Whether TPS travel history, parole, inspection, or admission creates an adjustment-of-status opportunity.
Asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Cancellation of removal if the person is placed in immigration court and meets the statutory requirements.
Prior removal orders, criminal issues, unlawful presence, fraud concerns, or reentry problems.
Whether any spouse, parent, or child has U.S. citizenship, lawful permanent residence, military service, disability, medical hardship, or other equities.
For people already in removal proceedings, see our guide: I’m in Removal Proceedings: Can I Stay in the U.S. Legally?
For deportation defense help, visit: Deportation and Removal Defense
Employers should treat Mullin v. Doe as both an immigration issue and a workforce compliance issue.
Many TPS holders work in health care, manufacturing, logistics, construction, food service, hospitality, elder care, and other labor-sensitive sectors. If TPS work authorization ends, employers may face sudden staffing disruption.
But employers must be careful.
Under USCIS Form I-9 rules, employers must reverify employment authorization no later than the date work authorization expires. USCIS explains reverification in its Handbook for Employers. USCIS also maintains specific guidance on automatic EAD extensions for TPS beneficiaries.
Employers should:
Track TPS-related EAD expiration dates.
Monitor USCIS, DHS, Federal Register, and E-Verify updates.
Avoid taking adverse action before work authorization actually expires.
Allow employees to present any valid I-9 document they choose.
Avoid asking for extra documents because an employee is from Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, or another TPS country.
Train HR managers on anti-discrimination rules and document abuse.
Coordinate immigration counsel, employment counsel, and HR before making workforce decisions.
The Department of Justice’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section warns that employers may not request more or different documents, reject valid-looking documents, or treat workers differently because of citizenship, immigration status, or national origin. See the DOJ’s IER frequently asked questions.
For broader work-permit planning, see: New Rule on Work Authorization Extensions
Not always.
TPS work authorization can be complicated because some EADs are automatically extended by Federal Register notices or USCIS guidance. Employers should check the worker’s TPS country, EAD category, expiration date, and any applicable automatic extension before acting.
TPS-based EADs often use category A12 or C19. USCIS provides country-specific updates on its Temporary Protected Status page.
Employers should not guess. They should verify the current rule before removing an employee from payroll.
TPS does not itself create a green card path. But many TPS holders may have independent green card options.
Some may qualify through marriage to a U.S. citizen.
Some may have U.S. citizen children who are now 21 or older.
Some may qualify through employment sponsorship.
Some may qualify for humanitarian relief.
Some may have traveled with TPS authorization or parole, which may matter for adjustment of status.
Some may need consular processing and waivers.
Every case turns on the person’s full immigration history. Entry without inspection, prior removal orders, unlawful presence, criminal history, misrepresentation, and prior immigration filings can all change the strategy.
For adjustment-of-status guidance, see: I-485 Processing Time and Adjustment of Status
Some immigration lawyers hoped that after Loper Bright, courts would more aggressively review immigration agency decisions.
Mullin is a reminder that the end of Chevron deference does not mean every immigration decision is reviewable.
After Loper Bright, courts interpret statutes independently. But if the statute clearly says courts lack jurisdiction, then independent interpretation may lead to the same result: the courthouse door is closed.
That is what happened in Mullin. The Court was not deferring to DHS’s interpretation of TPS. It was interpreting Congress’s jurisdictional limit.
Mullin v. Doe is not only a TPS case. It is a judicial-review case.
It tells TPS holders, employers, advocates, and lawyers that broad APA litigation may no longer be the safety net it once appeared to be.
For TPS holders, the practical lesson is urgent: build an individual plan.
For employers, the lesson is compliance: prepare for reverification, but do not discriminate.
For Congress, the lesson is responsibility: if the country wants a different TPS system, a more durable humanitarian program, or a pathway for long-settled TPS holders, Congress must write it.
The Supreme Court answered one question clearly.
Who decides?
Congress drew the line.
The Court enforced it.
The Supreme Court held that the TPS statute bars federal courts from reviewing most non-constitutional claims challenging DHS decisions to terminate, extend, or designate TPS for a foreign country.
No. The decision directly involved Haiti and Syria, but its reasoning may affect other TPS lawsuits and future TPS terminations.
Yes. TPS holders may still have individual immigration defenses or applications, including adjustment of status, asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, cancellation of removal, family petitions, employment petitions, waivers, or other relief.
TPS does not automatically lead to a green card. A TPS holder must qualify through a separate immigration category, such as family sponsorship, employment sponsorship, asylum-related protection, or another lawful pathway.
Only if the worker still has valid employment authorization through TPS, another immigration status, an automatic EAD extension, or another valid I-9 document. Employers should confirm current USCIS and Federal Register guidance before taking action.
No. Employers should not single out workers based on nationality, accent, immigration status, or perceived TPS status. Reverification must follow Form I-9 rules and anti-discrimination requirements.
A TPS holder should gather all immigration records and schedule a legal review. Important documents include passports, I-94s, TPS approvals, EADs, travel permits, prior court records, old applications, family immigration records, marriage records, children’s birth certificates, and criminal records if any.
The U.S. Department of State currently lists Haiti as Level 4: Do Not Travel, citing risks including crime, kidnapping, terrorism, unrest, and limited health care.
The U.S. Department of State currently lists Syria as Level 4: Do Not Travel, citing terrorism, unrest, kidnapping, crime, and armed conflict.
Yes. Herman Legal Group helps TPS holders evaluate green card eligibility, family petitions, employment sponsorship, removal defense, asylum-related protection, waivers, and emergency immigration strategies.
Schedule a consultation or call 1-800-808-4013.
Supreme Court opinion in Mullin v. Doe
8 U.S.C. § 1254a — Temporary Protected Status statute
USCIS Temporary Protected Status page
USCIS Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status
USCIS I-9 reverification guidance
USCIS TPS automatic EAD extension guidance
DOJ Immigrant and Employee Rights Section FAQs
American Immigration Council TPS overview
KFF report on TPS and health care impact
Migration Policy Institute analysis of TPS
