Please see: https://erm76.substack.com/p/trump-the-supreme-court-and-the-termination From Herodotus who lived in the 5th century BCE. Will the heavens be under the earth and the earth up in the sky on top of the heavens? Will men habitually live in the sea and fish live where men did before? It's a topsy-turvy world if you Lacedaemonians are really planning to abolish equal rights and restore tyrants to their states, when there is nothing known to man that is more unjust or bloodthirsty than tyranny. A Supreme Court decision threw open the door to end the protection afforded to Haitian and Syrian migrants that had enabled them to temporarily live in the US. The ruling came after a series of Trump Administration decisions and subsequent legal challenges. It will also affect other groups living in the country under the same program. In a separate ruling, the Court also supported the administration's stance pertaining to the asylum system. This topic, though, will be covered in subsequent podcasts. Introduction The Supreme Court decision comes after a series of legal and political maneuvers by both the government and those representing the migrant groups. The Trump Administration initially stripped Temporary Protection Status, also known as TPS, from thousands of Haitian refugees in the United States. The TPS program was created by Congress to provide a safe and legal haven for nationals from other countries living in the US who can't return home because of natural as well as human-made disasters. And as implied by the name, it's a temporary safe harbor with an expiration date. It's also a humanitarian program, and upon a determination of a country's status, the timeline could be extended. But the Trump Administration wanted to shred this legal status, to cut short the end dates, and to start mass deportations. For the Haitians, the TPS was set to expire on February 3, 2026, by an order from Kristi Noem, the former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the DHS. Through consultations with other government agencies, the secretary is charged with making TPS designations. This includes determining when and if it would be safe for such individuals to return home. The people potentially affected by the DHS Secretary's decisions range from Haitian to Venezuelan to Syrian migrants. Noem's directive was challenged in court, and one of the plaintiffs' key arguments was that her actions were motivated, at least in part, by racial or ethnic animus, in violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause. (1) Another key issue was the statute governing the TPS program. It states such decisions could not be reviewed by the courts. But a door was left open as it was charged that Noem didn't follow appropriate procedures as she moved toward terminating the TPS protections. The Decision Noem's directives were not immediately implemented as US District Judge Ana C. Reyes ordered a temporary stay of what amounted to a mass deportation order. A section of Reyes' memorandum opinion follows. Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely. Secretary Noem has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk—twelve countries up, twelve countries down…Her conclusion that Haiti, a majority nonwhite country, faces merely “concerning” conditions cannot be squared with the “perfect storm of suffering” and “staggering” “humanitarian toll” described in page-after-page of the Certified Administrative Record…. She ignored Congress's requirement that she “review the conditions” in Haiti only “after” consulting “with appropriate agencies.” Her “national interest” analysis focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here illegally, ignoring that Haitian TPS holders already live here, and legally so…. And though she states that the analysis must include “economic considerations,” she ignores altogether the billions Haitian TPS holders contribute to the economy…. The Government's primary response is that the TPS statute gives the Secretary unbounded discretion to make whatever determination she wants, any way she wants. And, yes, the statute does grant her some discretion. But not unbounded discretion. To the contrary, Congress passed the TPS statute to standardize the then ad hoc temporary protection system—to replace executive whim with statutory predictability…. Kristi Noem has a First Amendment right to call immigrants killers, leeches, entitlement junkies, and any other inapt name she wants. Secretary Noem, however, is constrained by both our Constitution and the APA to apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program. The record to-date shows she has yet to do that. (2) After an appeals court declined to issue a stay of Judge Reyes' decision, the administration turned to the Supreme Court. The Court subsequently heard oral arguments in April, 2026. At stake, in this particular case, was the status of Haitian and Syrian migrants. There were also attendant implications for other groups living in the US under the TPS system. If the protection for one group could be terminated, this could potentially be extended to other groups. During the April oral arguments, the US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration's position, stated the statute essentially gives the secretary a blank check in making TPS determinations. This includes disallowing judicial reviews. So, Noem's directions should stand. Ultimately, the Court found for the administration by a 6 to 3 margin, the conservatives forming the majority. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion and it reads, in part, None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications. (3) Justice Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion. She states that the Court's majority asserts that the Secretary's compliance with the TPS statute is in every respect unreviewable by the courts. But in fact the statute allows judicial review of whether the Secretary adhered to the procedures it mandates—which is what the plaintiffs dispute here. Second, the majority claims to see no evidence that race played any role in the Haiti decision. But the evidence is there, plain to see, in the President's statements, which the majority, and for that matter, his own lawyers, cannot even bear to repeat. Once that much is established, the case for interim relief is made: There is no dispute that the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent postponement of the TPS decisions. (4) So, according to Justice Kagan and the other dissenting Justices, the statute doesn't disallow a review of the process by which the Secretary makes a decision—the procedures. Further, unlike the majority opinion, race did play a role in the Secretary's decision based on a long litany of Trump's statements. For example, Trump called Haiti, among other nations, “s******e countries” during a meeting. (5) And it's not just Trump. In Noem's case, she posted on a social media site, I just met with the President. I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies. Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to AMERICANS. WE DON'T WANT THEM. NOT ONE. Dec 1, 2025 · (6) Further, as part of the secretary's deliberation, a determination should be made as to the viability of migrants safely returning home--have conditions improved to the point where people can return home safely? (7) And taking the Haitian migrant group as an example, Haiti, unfortunately. has not reached this point. The US State Department has issued a Level 4 advisory about the country: Do not travel to Haiti due to kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest, and limited health care. (8) It's not a safe place to return to at this time, and the same scenario is playing out in other countries. Syria, for example, is also under a Level 4 Do not Travel Advisory. It reads, in part, Do not travel to Syria for any reason…. Syria has experienced active armed conflict since 2011. No part of Syria is safe from violence. Hostage taking, terrorism, unexploded ordnance, and aerial bombardment pose significant risk of death or serious injury. The destruction of infrastructure, housing, medical facilities, schools, and power and water utilities has also increased hardships in Syria. (9) Even though the advisories are directed toward American citizens, they point to unsettled and dangerous living conditions. In fact, many of the reasons why thousands left their countries in the first place are still prevalent today. Yet, the Trump Administration wants to cut off the TPS designation and make hundreds of thousands of migrants return to these conditions. Conclusion Following the data and the arguments made by Judge Reyes and Justice Kagan, it appears that Noem didn't adequately follow the procedures concerning the termination of the TPS protections. This includes appropriate consultations with other government agencies, including the State Department. And as we've just noted, the State Department's own analyses point to countries that are still in chaos. But it doesn't really matter, because of the Supreme Court's decision, Sauer's blank check statement concerning the secretary's decision-making power holds true, at least in the eyes of six of the Supreme Court Justices. Ultimately, the Court cleared the path for TPS terminations. It also decided, in favor of the Trump Administration, further increasing the power of the pr
