The Supreme Court's June 25, 2026 decision in *Mullin v. Doe* removed courts' power to review TPS terminations, effectively stopping earlier judges' orders that had blocked some terminations. Federal judges confirmed that earlier court orders blocking TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria were "no longer in effect," allowing those terminations to move forward. However, a separate judicial protection emerged: on July 21, 2026, U.S.
District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton issued a stay blocking work permit revocation for TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine, creating a mixed legal landscape where TPS designations became largely unreviewable but work authorization received judicial protection. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a legal designation that lets foreign nationals work and live in the U.S. for a set period when their home country faces armed conflict, natural disaster, or epidemic. The Supreme Court's decision shifted power decisively to the executive branch and away from courts.
Table of Contents
- What the Mullin Decision Changed
- Which Judicial Protections Fell
- Work Permits and the Gorton Stay
- Who Is Protected and Who Isn't
- What You Should Do Now
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the Mullin Decision Changed
On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in *Mullin v. Doe* holding that federal law bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims challenging TPS designation or termination decisions. Before this ruling, federal judges could stop TPS terminations they viewed as legally flawed or procedurally improper.
That power is gone. Courts can no longer review whether the government followed proper procedures in ending TPS for a country—only constitutional claims remain open to judicial scrutiny. For TPS holders, the consequence was immediate: terminations that had been blocked could now proceed.
Which Judicial Protections Fell
Haiti and Syria demonstrated the decision's effect most clearly. Federal judges confirmed that earlier court orders blocking TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria were "no longer in effect," meaning terminations could move forward. Both countries had been shielded from termination by prior judicial orders; *Mullin* dissolved that protection. El Salvador took a different path.
The TPS designation simply expired on September 9, 2026, without government announcement or formal termination, affecting approximately 170,000 beneficiaries. Rather than announce a termination that might invite constitutional challenges, the government let the designation lapse. This tactic sidesteps *Mullin* entirely.
Work Permits and the Gorton Stay
While TPS designations became largely unreviewable after *Mullin*, a separate judicial shield protects work permits. On July 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton in Boston issued a stay blocking USCIS from revoking work permits retroactively for TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine, and blocked rejection of asylum applications solely for non-payment of a new annual asylum fee. This protects the most immediately valuable benefit—the legal right to work—even as the underlying status has become vulnerable.
Court-ordered stays protecting TPS from seven countries remain in effect despite *Mullin*: Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. However, these stays now rest on weaker legal ground since the Supreme Court removed the statutory authority courts had previously relied upon. They could be challenged more aggressively.
Who Is Protected and Who Isn't
TPS holders face a checkerboard of protections by country of origin. Those from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine have work authorization shielded from revocation by Judge Gorton's July order. Those from Haiti and Syria have lost all judicial protection—their TPS status can be formally ended without court review. Those from Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen have interim judicial protections that remain vulnerable.
The stakes are concrete. TPS holders typically have U.S. citizen or permanent-resident family members, property, employment, and years of residence. Losing TPS without an alternative status triggers deportability and family separation.
What You Should Do Now
If you hold TPS, first identify which country of origin you carry and verify what judicial protection currently applies. El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine holders should confirm your work authorization is current and keep records of Judge Gorton's July 2026 order in case of employer or immigration challenges. Haiti and Syria TPS holders need to consult an immigration attorney immediately about whether a formal termination is imminent and what legal alternatives—asylum, family-based green cards, stays of removal—may apply.
For all TPS holders, this is not a situation to watch from a distance. Immigration attorneys and organizations like the American Immigration Lawyers Association can evaluate your specific case and help you plan next steps before your status changes.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does my TPS expire or get terminated?
It depends on your country. El Salvador TPS expired September 9, 2026. Haiti and Syria have no remaining judicial protection and may be terminated at any time. El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine beneficiaries have work permits protected through at least Judge Gorton's order. Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen have court-ordered stays that remain in effect.
Can I work if my TPS is revoked?
No. If your TPS is revoked and you obtain no other legal status, you cannot legally work in the U.S. Your employer cannot employ you, and you become deportable.
What legal status can I get if my TPS ends?
Options include asylum (if you fear persecution in your home country), family-based green cards (if you have a U.S. citizen or permanent-resident relative), or stays of removal in certain circumstances. An immigration attorney can determine which apply to you.
Can this Supreme Court decision be overturned?
*Mullin* was a 6-3 ruling interpreting federal law. It cannot be reversed by lower courts. Only the Supreme Court itself could revisit it, or Congress could change the law that the Court interpreted. No pending legislation has altered that framework.