Trump says judges have no role in deportation fight

President Donald Trump’s administration is asking the Supreme Court to rule that federal courts cannot second-guess its decision to end deportation protections for Haitians and Syrians. (usnews.com) (supremecourt.gov) The dispute centers on Temporary Protected Status, a program Congress created in 1990 for people from countries hit by war, disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. When a country is designated, its nationals in the United States can stay and work legally for a set period. (scotusblog.com) (supremecourt.gov) In its Supreme Court brief, the administration points to one sentence in the statute: there is “no judicial review” of the Homeland Security secretary’s decision to designate, extend, or terminate Temporary Protected Status for a country. The government says that bars Administrative Procedure Act challenges to the Haiti and Syria terminations. (supremecourt.gov) Federal judges in New York and Washington blocked the administration from stripping protections from more than 350,000 Haitians and about 6,000 Syrians while the cases move forward. The Supreme Court then took the unusual step of granting review before the appeals process had finished. (usnews.com) (supremecourt.gov) The justices consolidated Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot on March 16 and set them for one hour of argument during the April 2026 sitting. The court later put the combined case on the calendar for Wednesday, April 29. (supremecourt.gov) (scotusblog.com) The immediate cases involve Syrian and Haitian nationals, but the stakes are wider because Temporary Protected Status now covers nearly 1.3 million people from 17 countries. Advocates say a ruling that terminations are effectively unreviewable could reach far beyond these two groups. (scotusblog.com) (americanimmigrationcouncil.org) (pasadenanow.com) The administration says the program had drifted from a temporary measure into something closer to an indefinite one, and it argues the secretary’s call belongs to the political branches, not judges. Immigrants challenging the terminations argue the government ignored conditions in Haiti and Syria and acted unlawfully. (scotusblog.com) (usnews.com) (americanimmigrationcouncil.org) The court is hearing the case at the end of its regular April argument calendar, with a decision expected later this term. That ruling will decide not just whether these protections end, but whether judges can review similar immigration decisions at all. (scotusblog.com) (supremecourt.gov)