Supreme Court Greenlights End of TPS for Hundreds of Thousands of Immigrants, Drawing Bipartisan Backlash

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 25, 2026 in Mullin v. Doe that the Trump administration has authority to end Temporary Protected Status for an estimated 350,000 Haitian and 6,000 Syrian immigrants. Unusually, Republican Ohio Governor Mike DeWine publicly criticized the decision despite being from the same party as the Trump administration. He stated that "today's decision is a legal decision but the policy to remove these individuals from this country is a mistake," calling Trump's TPS policy a "job killer" and "bad for Ohio."

The fracture is real. Between 12,000 and 15,000 Haitian TPS holders in DeWine's state are about to lose their driver's licenses on July 6 and face removal. With them goes the labor that keeps hospitals staffed, nursing homes running, eldercare facilities open.

This is not abstract principle. DeWine is staring at empty shifts and staffing crises. So is Rep. Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York and dependable Trump ally, who broke with the administration to co-lead bipartisan legislation H.R. 1689 to extend TPS protections. Lawler warned that "immediately shutting off TPS would create a crisis in hospitals, nursing homes, and the I/DD community." One-third of healthcare and eldercare workers in certain communities are Haitian TPS holders. Lawler's district north of New York City, specifically Rockland County, contains many Haitian TPS recipients. Ten other House Republicans joined him on the legislation.

The question now is whether this dissent amounts to anything more than noise.

What the Court Handed the White House

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion holding that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims regarding how the president and Department of Homeland Security use their authority to end TPS. The conservative supermajority formed the majority while the liberal justices dissented.

The majority rejected the constitutional claim that the TPS termination was based on racial prejudice, stating that public statements by political figures were insufficient to prove racial animus. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that the evidence was plain to see. Kagan wrote that the president's statements "fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President's resolve to remove Haitians from this country." She cited Trump's inflammatory comments including referring to Haiti as a "filthy, dirty, disgusting s-hole country" and making debunked claims about Haitians eating pets and poisoning the country's blood.

Once TPS is ended, many migrants who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for years will revert to undocumented status, losing jobs and facing removal.

Immigration advocates warn the decision could extend beyond Haiti and Syria to potentially affect TPS holders from 17 countries including Venezuela, El Salvador, Honduras, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, encompassing as many as 1.3 million people—giving the administration "carte blanche" to strip legal status across the board.

Separately, Senator Ron Wyden warned that the Trump administration is preparing a fast-track deportation plan for more than 500 unaccompanied migrant children in U.S. government custody, focusing on minors who have been in care for at least six months and lack a guardian or relative in the United States. Health and Human Services officials denied the plan's existence, accusing Wyden of fearmongering and insisting the government's focus is on vetting sponsors and reuniting children with family members.

When Doctrine Meets Workforce Reality

DeWine noted that "the situation in Haiti could hardly be much worse," with violent gangs running most of the country. The State Department has Haiti at a Level 4 Travel Advisory, the highest warning possible, due to gang activity, terrorism, kidnapping, and civil unrest.

His state is about to lose thousands of workers who staff nursing homes, care for disabled residents, and keep critical infrastructure running. Who replaces them? No one, not quickly, not at the wages those facilities can pay.

DeWine and Lawler frame their opposition not as humanitarian objection but as economic pragmatism—the language of workforce shortages and healthcare crises rather than compassion alone. It sidesteps the moral debate entirely and focuses on the material consequences Republican officials must explain to voters when essential services collapse.

Immigration advocates warn the decision will send TPS recipients scrambling for other legal pathways and raise the risk of deportation and family separation. Global Refuge, an immigrant advocacy organization, called the ruling "a deeply painful day for hundreds of thousands of families." The Marshall Project reported that advocates warn many Haitian TPS holders will face violent, needless deaths if returned, with arguments that the administration's policies reflect racial bias.

The Pattern Behind the Fracture

The intra-party dissent suggests that mass deportation policy can fracture partisan unity when local elected officials face constituent pressure over tangible disruptions—lost workers, shuttered services, community destabilization—rather than abstract policy debates.

What Happens Now

Lawler's H.R. 1689 faces uncertain prospects in a Republican-controlled Congress aligned with the Trump administration. United We Dream called the ruling part of the largest delegalization effort in modern U.S. history and coordinated a rapid-response rally with CASA, National TPS Alliance, and Haitian Bridge Alliance outside the Supreme Court. ACLU attorneys described the decision as a deeply painful blow that effectively rubber-stamps the administration's actions, while local advocates urge TPS holders to seek legal advice and prepare for heightened vulnerability.

The question remains whether Republican dissent from DeWine, Lawler, and ten other GOP lawmakers will translate into substantive legislative resistance or remain symbolic.

The Calculation

Will the administration enforce a policy that sends hundreds of thousands of integrated workers back to countries the State Department warns are too dangerous for American travelers, even as hospitals lose staff and nursing homes face closures—or will the intra-party fracture widen enough to force a political retreat?

DeWine and Lawler have made their calculation. They have decided their political survival depends on keeping those workers in place, on avoiding the concrete consequences—empty hospital corridors, shuttered care facilities, constituents demanding answers—that mass deportation will deliver to their doorsteps. The administration has made a different one: that Republican dissent will fold, that enforcement will proceed, that the political cost of defying the White House exceeds the cost of losing those workers.

Someone is wrong. Within weeks, we will know who.