On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe that the Trump administration can cancel Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations without meaningful judicial review. The decision affects more than 350,000 people, according to The Guardian. The core legal question was whether people from Syria could challenge the government's decision to end TPS for their country. The majority said they could not—closing off what had been the primary legal weapon for blocking these cancellations.

TPS allows nationals from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other severe conditions to live and work legally in the United States, though only on a temporary basis. Crucially, it does not lead to permanent residency. The Trump administration had been systematically rolling back TPS designations that, in some cases, had been renewed across administrations for decades. The administration argued that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has sole discretion over these country designations with no court oversight.

A Long Court Battle

The Mullin ruling came after months of legal skirmishing. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem had already terminated TPS for Venezuela (effective September 10, 2025), Haiti (effective September 2, 2025), and Honduras, claiming improved conditions in those countries. Each termination triggered lawsuits in federal courts.

The Supreme Court had been watching the issue closely. In October 2025, it ruled on Venezuela's TPS status in Noem v. National TPS Alliance. In March 2026, it considered an emergency stay application in Trump v. Miot regarding Haiti. These earlier proceedings signaled that the Court would eventually need to resolve the fundamental question—which it did in Mullin.

Not all lower court decisions went the administration's way. In April 2026, a federal judge ruled that the administration could not terminate TPS for roughly 5,000 Ethiopians, citing procedural flaws. That case had not yet reached the Supreme Court when Mullin was decided—a timing that may now put that victory in jeopardy under the new legal framework.

What This Ruling Changes—and What It Doesn't

The 6-3 split followed the Court's usual ideological pattern. The majority's decision on standing—whether affected people have the legal right to sue—means courts can no longer block individual terminations when TPS holders challenge them. That is a structural ruling with consequences far beyond Syria. The opinion does not, on its face, prevent Congress from redesignating countries or creating new TPS protections through legislation, though the current political makeup of Congress makes either unlikely.

DHS issued a statement on June 25 hailing multiple Supreme Court wins, including Mullin, as victories for its immigration enforcement agenda.

The human weight of this decision falls unevenly. The 350,000 figure includes people who have built lives in America—buying homes, raising U.S.-born children, starting small businesses—under a status that was repeatedly renewed before this administration took office. For immigration lawyers, the urgent questions are practical: How quickly will DHS issue final termination notices? Will humanitarian parole authority be used to help individuals on a case-by-case basis? Can people with pending applications for permanent residency move forward before removal cases begin?

The dissenting justices offered arguments that may matter if a future Congress or administration wants to restore TPS protections through new legislation. Mullin has removed the strongest legal barrier to executive terminations. The administrative process—not the courts—now controls the timeline and scope of these cancellations. That shift concentrates power in the executive branch at the very moment when 350,000 people face uncertainty about their legal status in the country.