By Fred Lucas, The Daily Signal | April 29, 2026
The Supreme Court’s conservative-leaning majority seemed favorable to the Trump administration during Wednesday’s arguments about terminating Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for Syrian and Haitian immigrants.
After President Donald Trump’s second term began, the Department of Homeland Security ended the status for 13 countries. The high court is weighing whether Trump can legally end the temporary protections, opening them up to deportation proceedings. Advocates for the Syrian and Haitian immigrants say they were fleeing war, rampant crime, and natural disasters, and could face those problems if they return.
Justices on Wednesday questioned whether the lower court erred in even taking up the case.
At one point, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson became fiery as she brought up Trump’s past comments that she said could suggest a race-based attitude toward the termination policy.
“What about bad genes and poisoning the blood of Americans?” Jackson asked Solicitor General John Sauer, quoting Trump.
“If you look at those statements in context again, they’re clearly talking about problems,” Sauer replied. “You look at each one of those statements. problems in crime, poverty, welfare, dependency, again, problems that have been emphasized again and again by not just President Trump, not just the secretary, but many others who favor a tough immigration policy.”
Jackson followed, “The president’s insistence that immigrants from certain countries—largely, if not almost exclusively, countries with African immigrants, black African immigrants—are not allowed, and calling these sorts of names. types of things he said about Haiti.”
During his arguments, Geoffrey Pipoly, lawyer for the Haitian plaintiffs, brought up Trump’s past rhetoric about “s——– countries.”
Justice Elena Kagan pressed Sauer about whether the Department of Homeland Security adequately consulted with the State Department before terminating the status.
The law requires consultation between the two departments, which occurred in this case. But plaintiffs contend it was not specific enough.
However, Justice Samuel Alito was skeptical about allowing courts to review the level of consultation.
“Some consultation, all right, it was very brief, and maybe it’s not what one would hope for,” Alito said. “But still, once you say, well, it’s permissible to review the adequacy of the consultation, it’s always going to be possible to pick, to raise objections about the adequacy of the consultation and the words that the State Department comes back with,” Alito said.
Ahilan Arulanantham, representing the Syrian plaintiffs, responded, “Our consultation claim in this sense is extremely narrow.”
“We don’t argue about the levels. We don’t argue about the amount,” Arulanantham said. “All we say is it has to be about a subject. Deliberation about a subject, so they have to talk about country conditions.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett later asked, “Is this going to get you very much? If it’s just a box-checking exercise, why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect when really what everybody cares about much more is the substance?”
Arulanantham replied that procedures are important for the public and lawmakers.
“Congress, and us too, and the millions of people who live with TPS holders have some faith in government.”
Fred Lucas is senior investigative reporter for the Daily Signal. He is the author of “The Myth of Voter Suppression: The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections.”
Original article link
