The Trump administration Appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking it to uphold the attempt to end it temporary protection status (TPS) for more than 350,000 Haitians.
The appeal came five days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a ruling command Rejecting the government’s request to eliminate TPS for Haitians pending the outcome of the litigation.
The petition filed by Attorney General D. John Sauer argues this 8 U.S. Code § 1254a(b)(5)(A) prohibits judicial review of the decision to terminate TPS. The petition asks the Supreme Court for approval certiorarimeaning the court will hear the appeal if four justices agree with it.
When a country is determined TPSAll citizens of this country who were in the United States at that time are entitled to a work permit. You are also protected from deportation. Countries are designated for TPS due to unsafe conditions, typically due to armed conflict or natural disasters. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may designate and extend TPS for periods of six, 12, or 18 months.
Originally former President Barack Obama’s DHS secretary, Janet Napolitano set Haiti for TPS in January 2010 after the country was hit by a severe earthquake. A series of multiple environmental and political crises, including a cholera epidemic and food insecurity, led to sustained renewal.
Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) under former President Joe Biden, extended TPS for Haitians until February 3, 2026. In the run-up to his re-election, then-candidate Donald Trump failed to remove the group’s protected status. On June 27, 2025, President Donald Trump’s former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem stated: announced a termination of TPS for Haitians effective September 2, 2025.
The majority opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, denying the government’s request for a stay, stated, among other things:
We focus on irreparable harm and the equity balance because it is clearest that the government has not met its burden on both counts. The government must demonstrate harm that is “both certain and great” and “so imminent that there is a clear and present need for just compensation to prevent irreparable harm.” The government’s failure to meet its burden of proving irreparable harm alone justifies the denial of emergency relief, which would upend the status quo and increase uncertainty while this appeal proceeds.
