Mullin v. Doe

Docket Number: 25-1083
Citation: 609/1
Term: October Term 2025
Argued: April 29, 2026
Decided: June 25, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Author: Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Concurring: Samuel A. Alito, Jr., John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Neil M. Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting: Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson

Read the official slip opinion (PDF)

AI-Generated Summary

Case Information:

Case Name: Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Doe et al. (consolidated with Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Miot et al.)
Docket Number: Nos. 25–1083 and 25–1084
Dates: Argued April 29, 2026—Decided June 25, 2026
Lower Court: Certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Syria case) and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Haiti case)

Facts of the Case:

Congress created the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program in 1990 to provide short-term humanitarian relief to nationals of designated countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions. The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate countries and must periodically review designations (at least every 18 months) after consulting appropriate agencies; designations terminate if conditions no longer meet statutory criteria.
Syria received TPS designation in 2012 due to extraordinary conditions under the Assad regime. In September 2025, the Secretary notified termination effective after 60 days, citing improved conditions post-regime change. Seven Syrian nationals sued in the Southern District of New York under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming the termination was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The district court granted interim relief under 5 U.S.C. §705; the Second Circuit denied a stay.
Haiti received TPS designation in 2010 after a devastating earthquake. In November 2025, the Secretary notified termination, citing improved conditions and national-interest considerations despite ongoing concerns like gang violence. Five Haitian nationals sued in the District of Columbia, raising APA claims and an equal-protection challenge alleging racial animus. The district court granted interim relief; a divided D.C. Circuit panel declined a stay.
The Government sought stays and certiorari before judgment in both cases. This Court granted review, consolidated the cases, and deferred ruling on stays.

Legal Issues Presented:

Whether 8 U.S.C. §1254a(b)(5)(A), which bars judicial review of “any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state,” precludes review of respondents’ non-constitutional (APA) claims challenging TPS terminations.
Whether the equal-protection claim (Haiti case only) alleging that termination was motivated by race is likely to succeed on the merits, warranting interim relief.
The case involves statutory interpretation of the TPS judicial-review bar and constitutional equal-protection principles in the immigration context. Respondents argued the bar applies only to substantive determinations or final decisions (not procedural steps) and that statements by the President and Secretary demonstrated racial animus.

The Court's Decision (Main Opinion):

Author & Type: Justice Alito announced the judgment and delivered the opinion of the Court (except as to Part III–A); Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Kavanaugh joined in full; Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined except for Part III–A. This is a majority opinion on the holdings.
Holding: The TPS statute bars judicial review of all non-constitutional claims. The equal-protection claim is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Respondents are not entitled to interim relief.
Legal Reasoning: The term “determination” encompasses both individual decisions and the process leading to them; the phrase “with respect to” broadens the bar to cover subsidiary decisions and procedural steps that merge into final agency action. Precedents such as McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. and Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians are distinguishable because they turned on different statutory language. The equal-protection claim fails because none of the cited statements by the President or Secretary was overtly racial; all expressed policy views resting on race-neutral justifications (including general opposition to the TPS program). The administration’s consistent termination of every TPS designation up for renewal (13 countries, spanning multiple regions) supplies a strong race-neutral explanation. The immigration context is relevant to assessing statements under Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

Concurring Opinion(s) (if any):

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. He agreed with the judgment but would hold that the judicial-review bar also precludes the equal-protection claim (as the text bars “judicial review” without distinguishing constitutional claims) and that aliens have no equal-protection rights against the Federal Government under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (which contains no Equal Protection Clause).

Dissenting Opinion(s) (if any):

Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. The dissent argued that the judicial-review bar applies only to the Secretary’s substantive “determination” on country conditions, not to mandatory pre-determination procedural steps such as consultation with appropriate agencies; the presumption favoring judicial review requires a narrower construction. The dissent further contended that the Haiti plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim is likely to succeed because statements by the President invoking racial stereotypes and tropes about Haitians demonstrate that race was a motivating factor under Arlington Heights, and that irreparable harm to hundreds of thousands of TPS holders supports interim relief.

Potential Significance:

The ruling interprets the TPS judicial-review bar expansively to encompass procedural challenges and subsidiary decisions, limiting judicial oversight of TPS terminations to constitutional claims only. It underscores the difficulty of establishing racially discriminatory purpose in immigration decisions when race-neutral policy rationales (such as opposition to TPS as implemented) are available, even in the presence of heated public statements. The decision reinforces that interim relief is unavailable where claims are either barred or unlikely to succeed on the merits.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Key terms: TPS Termination, Judicial Review, Equal Protection