The Supreme Court has made a landmark decision that will significantly impact the lives of 1.3 million individuals living in the United States under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). This humanitarian program provides protection from deportation for people who cannot return to their home countries due to armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances.
In 2025, the Trump administration began terminating or not renewing TPS for 13 of the 17 countries covered by the program. As a result, many TPS holders have lost or will soon lose their protection from deportation and their authorization to work. This decision has left many facing the prospect of separation from their families and communities, and some may be forced to return to countries like Afghanistan, Haiti, and Syria, which are on the U.S. State Department’s “Do Not Travel” list.
The Supreme Court’s Decision and Its Implications
In June 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Mullin v. Doe that federal courts cannot review most challenges to a TPS termination. This decision was based on the original 1990 law creating TPS, which bars judicial review of the decision to give a country TPS or to extend or end it.
The ruling means that no court can consider whether a cancellation is appropriate or whether it follows the law. James Percival, the general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, celebrated the decision, stating that “Temporary Protected Status was always supposed to be temporary and can be canceled at the appropriate time.” However, critics argue that the ruling leaves TPS holders with little recourse and no way to challenge potentially unjust decisions.
The History and Purpose of TPS
When Congress passed TPS as part of the Immigration Act of 1990 it was responding to the inconsistent use of Extended Voluntary Departure, which permitted noncitizens to remain in the U.S. regardless of their immigration status. This relief was often arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly for Salvadorans fleeing their country’s civil war in the 1980s.
Congress recognized the need for more uniform protection for people facing violence or extreme danger but not covered by narrow asylum laws. TPS was designed to “standardize the procedure for granting temporary stays of deportation,” as explained by Representative Sander Levin at the time. The program was intended to provide humanitarian relief without incentivizing unlawful immigration, as TPS itself could not lead to permanent residence.
The Challenges Facing TPS Holders
Many people who lose TPS are not eligible for any other immigration status. Lawful permanent residence, commonly known as a “green card,” is mainly available through close family relationships, special skills, or asylum status. However, past immigration violations or insufficient financial resources can disqualify TPS holders from these options.
TPS holders are given at least 60 days’ notice before termination takes effect, at which point they lose authorization to work and become undocumented. This leaves them vulnerable to arrest by immigration officers. Even those who have been continuously present in the U.S. for more than two years have limited options, as most TPS holders cannot obtain a student or employment visa. Some may face years of quota backlogs or travel bans.
The Supreme Court’s decision has highlighted the urgent need for congressional action to protect TPS holders. The Dream and Promise Act of 2026 and the TPS Review Act are two proposed solutions that could provide relief and create a pathway to citizenship for TPS holders. As the situation evolves, the impact on communities and the economy will become increasingly significant.
