www.silverguide.site –

The US supreme court dealt a huge blow this term to roughly 1.3 million immigrants in the US, many of whom have resided in the country legally for decades with temporary deportation protections that the Trump administration will now be able to end much more easily.

How does the justices’ ruling affect these people and what happens next?

What is temporary protected status (TPS)?

TPS was enacted by Congress in 1990 and is meant to safeguard people already in the US when disaster strikes in their native countries, rendering them unable to return there safely.

A nationality could be designated for TPS because of a natural disaster, an epidemic, armed conflict or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” affecting their country. TPS is initially designated for as few as six or as many as 18 months, during which successful applicants can receive US work permits and protection against deportation. Those with serious criminal records are generally ineligible.

Before a TPS designation is set to end for a particular nation, the homeland security secretary decides whether to extend it for existing beneficiaries, re-designate it so that newer people can apply or terminate it once the US deems that the country’s conditions have improved. If the secretary doesn’t make a determination in time, then a TPS designation should automatically extend for six months.

What did the supreme court rule?

The court’s conservative majority, in a six-to-three decision, ruled that the homeland security secretary’s TPS determinations, and the processes by which they are selected, will generally not be subject to judicial review. An exception is constitutional claims, which have to do with some of the most fundamental rights in the US, such as the right to equal protection.

The sole constitutional claim under consideration, which alleged that racial animus by the Trump administration against Haitians was a motivating factor for terminating their TPS, appeared “unlikely to succeed on the merits”, Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

Justice Elena Kagan warned in a dissent that the prevailing majority had created a scenario where “after today, a Secretary [of homeland security] can announce to the world that she didn’t consult with anyone – more, that she didn’t evaluate country conditions at all – before making, extending, or terminating a TPS designation. And the courts will be powerless to intervene.”

Kagan quoted extensively from Donald Trump’s frequent derogatory comments toward immigrants of color and Haitians in particular, adding: “The references – of filth, disease, and primitiveness – are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes ... The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.”

Who is affected and how?

The specific case before the supreme court involved TPS for more than 300,000 people from Haiti and several thousand from Syria. They are now expected to lose TPS – including their work authorization – once the ruling takes effect, even as the relevant legal case remains ongoing.

In Kagan’s words, that means the US government could ensure they are “put on the next plane”, especially if they don’t qualify or have the means to apply for other forms of immigration relief such as asylum, which now has a $100 fee and usually necessitates legal help. The current homeland security secretary, Markwayne Mullin, indicated that immigrants in the US with TPS should seek permanent residence or leave, despite the fact that there is no direct green card pathway via TPS.

TPS holders involved in the case include Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a Haitian Alzheimer’s researcher in California with type 1 diabetes, whose limited access to healthcare in his country of origin could spell a death sentence if he were returned, and Laila Doe, a Syrian behavioral technician in Illinois who is afraid of being robbed or killed back in Syria.

The court’s decision has larger implications, threatening all nationalities with TPS because the general lack of access to judicial review set by this new precedent will make it far simpler for the Trump administration to end protections, which officials have made clear they are eager to do.

It is also expected to significantly influence judges who are considering the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate TPS for other nationalities, five of which have been blocked only because of court orders.

What does the state department say about Syria and Haiti?

The US state department has listed both Syria and Haiti under the highest travel advisory level for Americans, a stark “do not travel”.

Risks in Syria, the administration says, include “terrorism, unrest, kidnapping, hostage taking, crime, and armed conflict”, adding: “No part of Syria is safe from violence.”

In Haiti, it warns, “violent crime is rampant”, “the expansion of gang, organized crime, and terrorist activity has led to widespread violence”, “crimes include robbery, carjackings, sexual assault and kidnappings for ransom” and “there is a substantial risk of being struck by stray bullets, even for people not directly involved in the violence”.

In the case of serious crimes, it says, “local law enforcement has an extremely limited ability to respond”.

What has Donald Trump said about Haiti?

Trump has asked why the US only accepts people from “shithole countries” like Haiti. He has called the island nation “filthy, dirty, [and] disgusting” and likened Haitian migration to “a death wish for our country”, saying Haitians in the US “probably have Aids”. In an especially viral moment during the 2024 presidential campaign, he claimed, falsely, that Haitians were “eating the pets of the people” in Ohio. He was re-elected shortly thereafter.

Which countries have or recently had TPS designation in the US?

The list includes some of the world’s most perilous places, whether because of war, famine, gang control, persecutory regimes or other factors.

Active TPS designations encompass people from Myanmar, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen, with a small subset of Venezuelans also retaining protections through early October.

But since retaking office last year, the Trump administration has been systematically ripping up previous administrations’ TPS designations, including for Afghanistan, Cameroon, Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua. Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have also lost their status.

What are the logistics of removing TPS holders from the US?

Once people lose their TPS, if they do not have another legal immigration status, they are at risk of arrest, detention and the same deportation protocols as millions of other undocumented immigrants across the country – even if, for example, they have a pending application for asylum or a green card.

That means they could be detained. Some may have existing removal orders that can now be acted upon. Others could be put into removal proceedings in the immigration courts, and if they don’t qualify for another form of immigration relief, their options for legal defense are virtually nonexistent, setting them up for deportation. After that, they could be flown back to their native countries with a years-long block on returning to the US, although especially for nations in turmoil, they might first languish in detention for months before boarding a plane.

What recourse do any of them have?

Some of them may qualify for other humanitarian protections, such as asylum. But unlike TPS, which safeguards people from generalized danger, asylum requires an individual persecution claim that many TPS holders cannot prove. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is continuously making it harder to win asylum as well, while until recently it had suspended application processing for immigration relief involving people from many of the countries that are currently or were previously covered by TPS, including Afghanistan, Myanmar, Haiti, Sudan, Yemen, South Sudan and Syria.

What does the US state department say about some other TPS countries?

It often warns Americans to avoid travel amid life-threatening conditions. For instance, the administration says “do not travel to Afghanistan for any reason”, given “civil unrest, crime, terrorism, risk of wrongful detention, kidnapping, natural disasters, and limited health facilities”. Myanmar similarly is off-limits because of improvised explosive devices and unexploded ordnance, as well as armed conflict and arbitrary detentions that affect Burmese citizens and foreigners alike.

In Sudan, “heavy fighting” prevails, and “crime, including kidnapping, assault, rape, armed robbery, home invasion, looting, and carjacking, is a common threat throughout the country”. In Yemen, “terrorists may attack with little or no warning”, while “local law enforcement may not be able or willing to respond to serious crimes”.

What are the economic implications of scrapping TPS?

TPS holders pay $7.8bn in taxes each year and have funneled an estimated $262bn into the nation’s economy since 2001, according to the Fwd.us advocacy organization. Hundreds of thousands work in essential industries with labor shortages such as construction, along with leisure and hospitality and, on a significant scale also, healthcare.

Among Haitian TPS holders alone, there are an estimated 13,000 nursing assistants who care for 65,000 patients every day, 3,000 school assistants working with 57,000 students daily and 22,000 cooks and servers providing 880,000 meals each day.

The elder care industry in particular is reeling after the supreme court ruling, given that in some areas TPS holders encompass 8% or more of caregiving professionals, and losing them could mean “limiting nursing home admissions, closing units or turning away requests for home care”, according to Axios.

What other immigration-related rulings came from the supreme court this term?

On the same day as the TPS decision, the court also ruled on an asylum policy at the US-Mexico border called “metering”, despite it having been rescinded years ago. The system was used to control the number of people processed at a legal port of entry into the US at the southern border on any given day. US officials would turn back those who tried to claim asylum before they set foot on US soil, forcing them to wait – sometimes indefinitely – in dangerous Mexican border towns.

Now, the nation’s highest court has given its stamp of approval to that policy, potentially opening the door for re-implementation in the future no matter the current administration’s crackdown on immigration.

Then, in one of the most monumental cases before the court, the justices on 30 June upheld the constitutional right to birthright citizenship for children born in the US to immigrant parents, following Trump’s executive order trying to end it. The majority ruling proved closer than many anticipated, however.

“Four justices – three in dissent, plus a fourth who agreed with the result but rejected the constitutional reasoning entirely – would not say plainly that the executive order violates the constitution,” said Sirine Shebaya, executive director of the National Immigration Project. “That fact deserves as much attention as birthright citizenship prevailing.”