Justice Samuel Alito questioned claims of racial bias as the Supreme Court considered TPS protections for Haitian and Syrian migrants.
Justice Samuel Alito pressed a lawyer for Haitian migrants at the Supreme Court this week, challenging the argument that the Trump administration’s move to end temporary deportation protections was driven by racial bias against non-white immigrants.
The exchange came in a closely watched case over Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for Haitian and Syrian migrants. A ruling, expected by the end of June, could determine whether courts may review Homeland Security decisions to terminate the protections and could affect hundreds of thousands of migrants whose legal status remains in dispute.
Congress created TPS to shield people already in the United States from deportation when war, natural disaster or other conditions make return to their home countries unsafe. The law requires the Department of Homeland Security to periodically reassess whether a country continues to qualify.
Geoffrey Pipoly, representing the migrants, argued that courts have authority to review the TPS decisions and that the Haiti termination did not comply with the law because it was influenced by bias. He pointed to public remarks by President Donald Trump about Haitian TPS holders and immigrants more broadly.
Alito questioned how that theory applied when the government’s TPS terminations involved migrants from a range of countries. “You have a really large — you have a really broad definition of who’s white and who’s not white,” Alito said, according to the account of the arguments. The justice also said he did not like “dividing the people of the world into these groups.”
The Justice Department argued that TPS decisions are committed to the executive branch and are not subject to judicial review. It warned that allowing such challenges could invite broad litigation over immigration policy. Lawyers for the migrants countered in court papers that the government’s position would shield unlawful executive action from review.
The court’s ideological split showed through parts of the argument. Conservative justices appeared more receptive to the administration’s position, while liberal justices focused on whether alleged racial bias by Homeland Security could raise constitutional concerns. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to Trump’s public statement that migrants were “poisoning the blood of America” as possible evidence that discriminatory purpose may have played a role.
Homeland Security has already ended legal status for migrants from six countries, including Venezuela and Honduras, after the Supreme Court temporarily allowed those moves through emergency requests. The current case concerns the merits of the administration’s actions involving Haitians and Syrians and could carry broader consequences.
The status of migrants from seven other countries remains on hold while the case is pending, including more than 6,000 Syrians and nearly 350,000 Haitians, as well as migrants from Ethiopia, Myanmar, Yemen, Somalia and South Sudan. The next major development is the court’s ruling, due before the end of June.
Comments (0)