By Mel Wilson, NASW Senior Policy Advisor
The Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Syrians represents a major humanitarian setback and reflects how racial inequities shape U.S. immigration policy. By agreeing with the Trump administration that it can end protections for over 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, SCOTUS dismantled a key humanitarian policy. Including the 500,000 to 700,000 indirectly impacted spouses and children, more than a million people face severe life disruption and potential danger.
The Court affirmed that the president—through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—can immediately end protected status for Haitians and Syrians without the possibility of judicial review. Affected TPS holders living legally in the U.S. will likely be reclassified to unauthorized status, causing them to lose jobs and face deportation—often forcing them to leave American-born children behind. This follows years of legal residency for thousands of Haitians, some since the devastating 2010 earthquake.
Child Welfare Implications
The ruling exposes thousands of U.S.-raised children to family separation and instability. Forced separation and displacement cause severe psychological harm, especially to school-age children. The Court’s opinion forces parents into a agonizing dilemma: uproot U.S.-citizen children to uncertain, dangerous environments in Haiti, or separate from them permanently to preserve their safety and U.S. legal status. This ruling exacerbates uncertainty for mixed-status households, intensifying emotional stress and economic insecurity caused by the removal of a primary income source.
Racial Implications
Human rights and immigration advocates argue that race heavily influenced the administration’s policy and the SCOTUS majority decision in Mullen v. Doe. The ruling disproportionately harms a Black immigrant population, reinforcing historical patterns where communities of color bear the brunt of restrictive measures.
Racial justice advocates note that forcing Haitians back to unsafe conditions mirrors a broader history of unequal treatment toward Black migrants. During his second term, President Trump has placed travel and visa bans on 39 countries, mostly African nations. Furthermore, in 2025, the administration essentially suspended the refugee admissions program but made an exception for 7,500 White Afrikaners, based on unsubstantiated claims of persecution by the Black South African government. In March 2026, the administration raised the refugee admissions cap to 17,500 exclusively for White South Africans.
In her dissenting opinion for Mullen, Justice Elena Kagan directly addressed these racial dynamics:
“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.”
Asylum Seeker Ruling
On the same day as the Mullen v. Doe decision, SCOTUS ruled that the federal government may lawfully turn back asylum seekers before they reach U.S. soil, holding that the asylum statute applies only after physical entry. This expands executive power at the southern border by allowing DHS to:
- Refuse to process asylum claims at ports of entry due to insufficient capacity.
- Turn back migrants attempting to present themselves lawfully.
- Avoid judicial review of its asylum policies and practices.
Both concurrent rulings overturned long-standing policies, damaging thousands of legitimate asylum seekers and harming the country’s humanitarian standing worldwide.
What Happens Next for Haitians and Syrians
In the wake of this decision, DHS will lift court-ordered pauses on removal orders, reactivate previously issued orders, and begin status termination procedures for Haitian and Syrian TPS holders. However, the agency will not conduct immediate mass removals.
Impacted individuals can apply for a green card, which generally allows them to remain in the U.S. while DHS processes the case. While not a guarantee against removal, a pending application often prompts DHS to pause enforcement. Still, many hesitate to apply because permanent residency applications can be risky, expensive, or inaccessible due to:
- Fear of family separation
- Lack of a required sponsor
- High application costs
- Fear of denial
- Pre-existing removal orders
- Distrust of DHS and ICE
Faced with these barriers, some Haitian TPS holders report that their only remaining option is to stay in the United States as unauthorized residents.
Resources
