At a candlelight vigil at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on January 28, 2026, airport employees and religious leaders prayed that the federal government would provide Temporary Protected Status to Haitians who are lawfully residing in the United States. Part ceremonial, part political pressure, it was the kind of scene that immigration advocates have staged numerous times in the last year. After five months, the battle has progressed from airport terminals to the nation’s highest court, and during the last 48 hours, it has taken an unexpected turn.
Attorneys representing Haitian TPS holders filed a motion on Tuesday requesting that the Supreme Court dismiss the Trump administration’s Haiti TPS lawsuit in its entirety. They contend that recently acquired documents from the Department of Homeland Security show something detrimental: that the decision to terminate protections for over 330,000 Haitians was essentially settled prior to any official review.
As late as May 29, 2025, the motion details a draft decision document that suggested extending Haiti’s TPS because to rising violence and “the rapidly evolving nature of the security environment.” Then, on verbal orders from a political appointee, that recommendation was changed within hours. The word “extend” in the original text was changed to “terminated.” There is no official justification for the reversal. The motion refers to this as a “preordained outcome”—a term that could change how courts assess presidential discretion in immigration decisions in the future if it is upheld.
The administration’s fundamental legal position has remained constant throughout: the TPS Act expressly prohibits judicial review of any decision made by the DHS Secretary regarding the designation, extension, or termination of a nation’s status. During the April oral argument, Solicitor General John Sauer emphasized this point, reminding the court that the clause “means what it says.” However, there was opposition to the argument. When Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Sauer directly about whether or not courts may examine allegations of racial discrimination, he acknowledged that they could.
The Haitian challengers have claimed that the Trump administration terminated Haitian TPS, at least in part, because to race, which is why that admission is important. In February, District Court Judge Ana Reyes had already determined that this was “substantially likely,” citing the administration’s “hostility to nonwhite immigrants” in relation to Haiti in particular. That decision was referred to by the administration as “lawless activism.”
The procedural mechanics are at the core of this case, so it’s worth taking a moment to consider what the documents claim. Before revoking a designation, DHS must confer with other federal agencies in accordance with the TPS legislation. The plaintiffs contend that the State Department consultation was, at best, superficial and that the procedure was designed to arrive at a decision that Noem had already made. The administration’s assertion that “conditions had improved” is more difficult to justify on its face because Haiti is still classified by the U.S. State Department as a “Level 4: Do Not Travel” country, which is its highest danger category. How the court will consider that contradiction is still up in the air.
The stakes are real. An estimated $3.4 billion is contributed to the U.S. economy each year by Haitian TPS holders. Approximately 75,000 of them are employed in industries like healthcare, construction, and transportation that are already understaffed.
In an amicus brief, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, along with eighteen other attorneys general, referred to them as “teachers, healthcare workers, and entrepreneurs.” Even if the TPS holders won their case, the group contended that deporting them would continue to harm state economies and public health systems. The Supreme Court’s decision to maintain the injunction while the case is ongoing was directly addressed by that final point.
The Supreme Court’s extraordinary decision to take this case before the federal appeals courts had an opportunity to comment indicates how swiftly the justices determined the matter needed to be resolved and how urgently the administration sought a resolution. By the end of June, which is just a few days away, a decision is anticipated.
The court will almost surely require the administration to react first, and time is of the essence, so it is unclear whether the current move seeking dismissal will gain any traction. As this case draws to a close, there is a feeling that, regardless of the court’s decision, the fundamental question of how much authority a president has to deport lawful immigrants—those who are present under a law passed by Congress but are not undocumented or criminals—will outlive this decision and eventually resurface in some other form.
