On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe that courts may no longer review most challenges to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) terminations. This alert explains what the decision means for employers, HR and global mobility teams, and TPS employees, and the steps to take now.
In a 6-3 decision issued today, the Supreme Court in Mullin v. Doe (consolidated with Trump v. Miot) held that the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) statute bars judicial review of virtually all challenges to the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decisions to terminate a country’s TPS designation. The ruling reverses lower court orders that had postponed the terminations of TPS for Syria and Haiti, clearing the way for those terminations, and others like them, to take effect.
For employers with TPS beneficiaries in their workforce, the practical message is direct: the legal pathways that have repeatedly paused TPS terminations over the past year are now substantially closed. Affected employees face the loss of status and work authorization on the timelines set by DHS, and the window for relief through the courts has narrowed to a sliver. This alert summarizes the decision and outlines the steps employers should take now.
The Most Urgent Date: July 1, 2026
For employers of Haitian and Syrian TPS holders, one date matters above all others right now. Under the court orders that were in place during the litigation, USCIS instructed employers to treat the work authorization of Haitian and Syrian TPS beneficiaries as valid through July 1, 2026, recording that date on Form I-9 and in E-Verify. With the Supreme Court dissolving those orders, that date is no longer a placeholder pending litigation; it is the near-term cliff for this population unless DHS issues new guidance that changes it.
DHS is expected to issue updated guidance for affected beneficiaries and their employers in the coming days, which may revise these I-9 and E-Verify mechanics. Employers should monitor the USCIS TPS pages for Haiti and Syria closely and be prepared to act quickly, as the timeline is now measured in days, not months.
Background
Congress created TPS in 1990 to provide humanitarian relief to nationals of countries affected by armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary conditions that prevent safe return. TPS confers protection from removal and eligibility for employment authorization. Although designated as “temporary,” many designations have endured for years or decades.
The current administration has taken the position that designations should be limited in duration and scope, and it has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for review, 13 in all. A wave of litigation followed, and lower courts had consistently allowed challenges to proceed and had paused terminations, relying on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Government’s central defense throughout was the TPS statute’s judicial review bar at 8 U.S.C. section 1254a(b)(5)(A), which states that “[t]here is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.”
What the Court Held
1. The judicial review bar impacts nearly all challenges, including procedural ones.
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito read the statute’s bar on reviewing any “determination” about a TPS termination very broadly. It covers not just the final decision to end a designation, but also the steps leading up to that decision. That means employees and advocates can no longer ask a court to second-guess either the substance of a termination (whether conditions in the country actually justified it) or the process DHS followed in reaching it (for example, whether the agency properly consulted other parts of the government first).
This is the heart of the decision and its most consequential feature for employers. The argument that had repeatedly persuaded lower courts to pause terminations, that DHS cut corners on the required review of country conditions, is now off the table as a way to win relief. The Court acknowledged that the law tells DHS to follow these steps, but held that enforcing them is a matter for Congress and the political process, not the courts.
2. Only narrow constitutional claims survive, and they face a steep climb.
The Court left open whether constitutional claims can still be brought at all, but it made clear they will be very hard to win. The Haiti plaintiffs argued the termination was driven by racial bias. The majority disagreed, finding that the administration’s broad opposition to the TPS program offered a race-neutral reason for ending every designation that came up for review. Importantly, the Court found this claim “unlikely to succeed” rather than dismissing it outright, so the Haiti plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge may continue in the lower court even as the termination proceeds. Justice Thomas, concurring, would have gone further and barred constitutional claims entirely in this context.
In short, constitutional challenges are not entirely foreclosed, but they are a long shot, especially given how much deference the Court gives the Executive on immigration.
3. Nationwide relief is effectively gone.
By reversing the District Court orders that had postponed the terminations, the Court signaled that the broad, program wide pauses TPS holders have relied upon are no longer a realistic source of protection. We expect the remaining nationwide stays blocking other terminations to be dissolved in short order, and the terminations to proceed on their respective Federal Register timelines.
The Dissent
Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented. She argued the statute lets courts check whether DHS actually did what the law requires before terminating, and she would have upheld the lower court’s finding that race played a role in the Haiti decision. The dissent warned that the majority’s reading leaves the law’s procedural requirements with no real teeth.
What This Means for Employers
TPS beneficiaries are often longtime, valued employees whose departure carries real operational cost. This decision changes the calculus for any employer with these individuals in its workforce, in several ways.
- Treat published termination dates as firm. With the litigation avenue largely closed, employers should plan around the effective termination dates in the Federal Register rather than assuming that courts will intervene. Work authorization tied solely to TPS will lapse on those dates.
- Audit your workforce for TPS-dependent employees. Identify employees whose work authorization rests on a TPS designation, especially for countries already terminated or now under review, and match their work permit expiration dates against the relevant government notices.
- Assess alternative status options early. Some TPS holders may qualify to move into another category, such as H-1B, an employment-based green card, or a family-based option. Because the timeline is now compressed, that analysis should begin right away rather than waiting for a work permit to near expiration.
- Confirm work authorization before relying on it. Do not assume a TPS-based work permit has been automatically extended without a current, valid government notice confirming it. Reverify I-9 documents as expiration dates approach, and apply the same process consistently across your workforce to avoid discrimination concerns.
- Coordinate communications carefully. Employees losing TPS will have questions and anxiety. Employers should communicate factually and avoid giving individualized legal advice; refer affected employees to counsel for case specific guidance.
What This Means for Employees
TPS holders from terminated countries should seek individualized legal advice without delay. Depending on timing, options may include moving to another status before the termination takes effect, pursuing a green card where a path exists, or, for some, applying for asylum or other humanitarian relief. Leaving the country carries serious consequences for any future return, and the right approach depends heavily on each person’s facts. The key point is that waiting for a court to step in is no longer a sound strategy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the Mullin v. Doe ruling end TPS work authorization immediately?
No. The ruling clears the way for terminations to take effect, but each country’s TPS designation ends on the date set in its government termination notice, not on the date of the decision. For Haitian and Syrian beneficiaries, USCIS guidance currently lists July 1, 2026 as the work authorization expiration date for Form I-9 and E-Verify purposes, though DHS is expected to issue updated guidance shortly. Employers should plan around the published dates and watch for new DHS instructions.
Which countries are affected?
The decision directly involved Syria and Haiti, but its reasoning applies to all TPS terminations. The current administration has moved to terminate every designation that has come up for review, 13 in all, including countries such as Venezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, and others. We expect remaining court orders blocking those terminations to be lifted in the coming days.
Can employees still challenge a TPS termination in court?
For practical purposes, the main avenues are now closed. Courts can no longer review whether the government followed the right process or correctly assessed country conditions. Narrow constitutional claims remain theoretically possible but are very difficult to win. Waiting for a court to restore protection is no longer a sound strategy.
What should employers do now?
Identify employees whose work authorization depends on TPS, match their work permit expiration dates against the relevant government notices, and assess alternative status options early, since the timeline is now compressed. Confirm work authorization before relying on it, and reverify I-9 documents consistently as expiration dates approach.
Are there other options for employees who lose TPS?
Possibly. Depending on individual circumstances, some TPS holders may qualify to move into another status, such as H-1B, an employment-based green card, or a family-based option, and some may be eligible for asylum or other humanitarian relief. The right path depends heavily on each person’s facts, so individualized legal advice is essential.
How Goel & Anderson Can Help
With the Syria and Haiti terminations now cleared to proceed, we expect the remaining court orders blocking other terminations to be lifted in the coming days, and those terminations to move forward on their respective timelines. We are tracking the status of every designated country and will keep clients with affected employees informed as developments unfold.
If your organization employs individuals who hold or have held TPS, we would welcome the opportunity to review your population and develop a transition plan tailored to your workforce. Please contact our office to discuss next steps.
This alert is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The application of TPS terminations to any individual or workforce depends on specific facts. Please consult Goel & Anderson for guidance tailored to your situation.
