Trump v. Miot, Mullin v. Doe

Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian immigrants. The brief was filed on behalf of nine local governments, five mayors, and 14 local leaders that represent some of the largest Haitian populations in the U.S.

On March 11, 2026, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow it to revoke TPS for Haitian immigrants, after a district court blocked the attempt and an appeals court refused to stop the lower court’s decision. We argue that if the government abruptly strips legal status from thousands of people overnight, communities will face irreparable harm.

The TPS program gives the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authority to grant status to individuals from certain countries to live and work in the U.S. when they can’t return to their home country because of civil war, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances. Haiti received the TPS designation after a 2010 earthquake and is still a country deep in crisis today. Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem planned to terminate the status on February 3, 2026.

Our brief outlines the real harms to communities if Haitian TPS holders are deported.

1. Damage to local economies. TPS-eligible Haitians contribute $4.4 billion annually to the U.S. economy. In Florida alone, 93,000 TPS holders pay $300 million in federal and payroll taxes and $306 million in state and local taxes. Communities will be forced to cut services without these funds.
2. Threats to essential services and local workforces. Many Haitian TPS holders work in health care and elder care — fields already facing labor shortages. Losing these workers would severely impact services that local governments depend on to care for their residents.
3. Multiple and interconnected burdens on local government. Mass deportation means family separation, straining foster systems. School enrollment will drop, reducing education funding. And without income, many families could face poverty and homelessness, increasing their reliance on public assistance.
4. Potential surges in federal immigration enforcement: ICE operations reduce public safety and force local governments to divert resources away from other critical work to respond to mass demonstrations and violence from ICE agents.

We’re urging the court to consider the broader repercussions of allowing the federal government to terminate this program so abruptly without the benefit of a full review. The ruling would create uncertainty for all TPS holders and threaten communities and economies across the country.

Read the amicus brief.

Update:

On April 13, 2026, Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve TPS for Haitian and Syrian immigrants. The brief was filed on behalf of 47 local governments and local leaders, some of whom represent some of the largest Haitian and Syrian populations in the country. New York City and Los Angeles County are part of the coalition.

This is our second brief about this issue, after the court delayed its decision on an emergency stay in Trump v. Miot. That case has since been consolidated with Mullin v. Doe, a case involving Syrian TPS holders.

The brief underscores the harm to local governments if TPS is revoked for Haitians and Syrians — and adds new information about the contributions made by the Syrian community. For example, Syrian TPS holders contribute about $100 million to the U.S. economy annually.

The brief urges the court to uphold the district courts’ orders and preserve TPS for our neighbors and members of our communities.

Read the amicus brief.

Update:

On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration, clearing the way for it to remove Haitian and Syrian immigrants from our communities. The majority ruled that federal courts lacked the authority to block the administration’s actions, severely limiting judicial review of future TPS claims. Despite the administration’s overtly discriminatory public statements — which the lower court acknowledged — the Supreme Court ruled that race wasn’t likely a motivating factor for terminating TPS. However, the three dissenting judges argued that the statements are evidence race was a factor in the administration’s decision. The ruling now creates uncertainty for all TPS holders and threatens communities across the country.