Temporary Protected Status—better known as TPS—is one of the clearest examples of America using immigration policy to advance both humanitarian values and foreign-policy interests. Congress created TPS through the Immigration Act of 1990, but the underlying principle dates back decades: the United States should not force people to return to countries devastated by war, natural disaster, political collapse, or other extraordinary conditions. TPS does not grant asylum, permanent residence, or citizenship. It temporarily protects qualifying nationals of designated countries who were already present in the United States by an established cutoff date. While a designation remains in effect, recipients generally receive protection from removal and authorization to work legally. Haiti first received TPS following its catastrophic 2010 earthquake. The United States later extended and redesignated Haiti as the country endured additional disasters, political collapse, gang violence, and severe humanitarian instability. The Trump administration nevertheless terminated Haiti’s designation. In Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that federal courts generally cannot review the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decisions to designate, extend, or terminate TPS—including claims that the Secretary violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Although the Court did not foreclose every constitutional challenge, it concluded that the Haitian plaintiffs were unlikely to prove, on the existing record, that racial discrimination motivated the termination. As a result, approximately 350,000 Haitians lost TPS and the employment authorization connected to it, unless they possessed another lawful status or independent basis for relief. In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, I explain: • What TPS is—and what it is not• Why Congress created the program• How Haiti came to receive TPS• What the Supreme Court decided in Mullin v. Doe• Why courts ordinarily defer to executive-branch foreign-policy judgments• Why President Trump’s disdain for the intelligence process makes that deference especially dangerous• How the decision further weakens judicial checks on arbitrary executive power• What the ruling could mean for TPS holders from other countries TPS represents America at its best: offering temporary refuge to people who cannot safely return home while demonstrating American values on the world stage. The lasting danger of Mullin v. Doe extends beyond Haiti or Syria. The Supreme Court has once again diminished the judiciary’s ability to check executive power—and only time will reveal what that does to America’s credibility and humanitarian leadership. Special thanks to retired Coast Guard Commander Steve Davies for suggesting this topic. Steve and I both grew up in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, attended Cedar Crest High School, and later attended federal service academies. Given his experience as a senior Coast Guard leader—and the Coast Guard’s vital immigration role within the Department of Homeland Security—I particularly value his perspective on these issues. Humanitarian immigration work is important, but it is rarely lucrative. Sharing this episode helps us reach more people, sustain these educational materials, and continue serving underserved communities in the United States. If you believe the public deserves clear information about immigration law, constitutional government, and the rule of law, please help us by sharing this episode. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
