The question
Whether aliens from Syria and Haiti challenging the termination of Temporary Protected Status are entitled to orders postponing those terminations during litigation.
Mullin v. Doe
What the Court decided
The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of respondents' non-constitutional claims, so the interim relief postponing the terminations cannot stand. Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) states there is no judicial review of any determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the designation, termination, or extension of a foreign state's TPS designation, and that language covers procedural as well as substantive claims. The Court further held that the equal protection claim that Haiti's designation was terminated because of race is unlikely to succeed. Six justices reached this outcome over a three-justice dissent.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion in part
Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett
Alito announced the judgment and delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part III-A. The opinion held that Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) bars judicial review of respondents' non-constitutional claims because the statute forecloses review of any determination with respect to the designation, termination, or extension of a foreign state's TPS status. It reasoned that the term determination reaches both procedural and substantive questions and that the phrase with respect to broadens the bar's scope. It rejected respondents' theories that the bar reaches only substantive claims, only assessments of country conditions, or only the ultimate determination. It also concluded the equal protection claim that Haiti's designation was terminated because of race is unlikely to succeed. Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh joined in full; Gorsuch and Barrett joined except for Part III-A.
Concurring
Thomas, writing alone
Thomas filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus does not state its reasoning.
Dissenting
Kagan, joined by Sotomayor, Jackson
Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. The syllabus does not state its reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that the TPS statute, 5 U.S.C. Section 1254a(b)(5)(A), bars judicial review of respondents' non-constitutional claims.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court reasoned that the term determination reaches both procedural and substantive questions, so the bar is not limited to substantive claims.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court held that the equal protection claim that Haiti's TPS designation was terminated because of race is unlikely to succeed.
Source: syllabus, Held
Alito delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part III-A, joined in full by Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, and joined except for Part III-A by Gorsuch and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Kagan filed a dissenting opinion in which Sotomayor and Jackson joined, producing a 6-3 outcome.
Source: syllabus, lineup