The Trump administration appealed to the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking it to uphold on attempt to end temporary protected status (TPS) for more than 350,000 Haitians.
The appeal came five days after the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order denying the administration’s request to end TPS for Haitians pending the outcome of litigation.
The petition, filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that 8 U.S. Code § 1254a(b)(5)(A) prohibits judicial review of the decision to end TPS. The petition asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, which means that the court would hear the appeal if four justices agree to it.
When a country is designated for TPS, all citizens of that country, in the US at the time, are eligible for work permits. They are also protected from deportation. Countries are designated for TPS due to unsafe conditions, typically due to armed conflict or natural disasters. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary can designate TPS for periods of six, 12, or 18 months, and extend it for the same.
Former-president Barack Obama’s DHS secretary, Janet Napolitano, originally designated Haiti for TPS in January 2010 after a major earthquake struck the country. A series of multiple environmental and political crises, including a cholera epidemic and food insecurity, led to continued renewals.
Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) under former-president Joe Biden, extended TPS for Haitians to run until February 3, 2026. In the lead up to his reelection, then-candidate Donald Trump stumped on eliminating protected status for the group. On June 27, 2025, President Donald Trump’s previous DHS secretary, Kristi Noem, announced a termination of TPS for Haitians effective September 2, 2025.
In denying the administration’s request for a stay, the majority opinion of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said, in part:
We focus on irreparable harm and the weighing of the equities because it is most clear that the government has not satisfied its burden on either score. The government must demonstrate an injury that is “both certain and great,” and “of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.” The government’s failure to meet its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm alone justifies denying emergency relief that would upend the status quo and increase uncertainty while this appeal proceeds.
