Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Mullin v. Doe
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Mullin v. Doe
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf
Case background
Congress created Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 1990 to provide
short-term humanitarian relief for aliens who cannot safely return to their
home countries; although designed to afford temporary relief, TPS
designations in practice have often lasted for decades. Syria received a TPS
designation in 2012 because of “extraordinary and temporary conditions”
related to the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad, and Haiti received one
in 2010 after a devastating earthquake. In 2025, the Secretary of Homeland
Security provided public notice that both designations would terminate. Seven
Syrian nationals sued in the Southern District of New York under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the District Court granted interim
relief under 5 U. S. C. §705; the Second Circuit denied the Government’s
request for a stay. Five Haitian nationals sued in the District Court for the
District of Columbia under the APA and also charged that terminating Haiti’s
designation violated the constitutional right to equal protection because it
was motivated by race; that court granted interim relief, and a divided
D. C. Circuit panel declined to issue a stay. The Government sought a stay and
a writ of certiorari before judgment in both cases, and this Court granted
review, consolidated the cases, and deferred ruling on the stay applications.
Questions Presented
(1) Whether the judicial-review bar in the TPS statute, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(5)(A), precludes respondents’ APA claims.
(2) If reviewable, whether respondents’ APA claims nonetheless fail on the merits.
Holding
The TPS statute bars judicial review of respondents’ non-constitutional
claims. Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) provides that there is no judicial review of
any “determination” of the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the
designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign
state. Whether “determination” means an individual decision or the process
leading up to a decision, the bar reaches all of respondents'
non-constitutional claims, including their APA claims and the subsidiary
procedural steps that merge into the final agency action.
The Miot respondents’ equal protection claim — that Haiti’s TPS
designation was terminated because of race — is unlikely to succeed. Even
assuming heightened scrutiny under Arlington Heights applies, none of the
cited statements by the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and all
expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications; indeed,
respondents themselves offer a race-neutral explanation for the Government’s
action. Reversed and remanded.
The Court
Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of
the Court except as to Part III–A. The Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and
Kavanaugh joined that opinion in full, and Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined
except for Part III–A. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice
Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson
joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Mullin v. Doe, written by Justice Alito.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Alito. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf
Case background
Congress created Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 1990 to provide
short-term humanitarian relief for aliens who cannot safely return to their
home countries; although designed to afford temporary relief, TPS
designations in practice have often lasted for decades. Syria received a TPS
designation in 2012 because of “extraordinary and temporary conditions”
related to the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad, and Haiti received one
in 2010 after a devastating earthquake. In 2025, the Secretary of Homeland
Security provided public notice that both designations would terminate. Seven
Syrian nationals sued in the Southern District of New York under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the District Court granted interim
relief under 5 U. S. C. §705; the Second Circuit denied the Government’s
request for a stay. Five Haitian nationals sued in the District Court for the
District of Columbia under the APA and also charged that terminating Haiti’s
designation violated the constitutional right to equal protection because it
was motivated by race; that court granted interim relief, and a divided
D. C. Circuit panel declined to issue a stay. The Government sought a stay and
a writ of certiorari before judgment in both cases, and this Court granted
review, consolidated the cases, and deferred ruling on the stay applications.
Questions Presented
(1) Whether the judicial-review bar in the TPS statute, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(5)(A), precludes respondents’ APA claims.
(2) If reviewable, whether respondents’ APA claims nonetheless fail on the merits.
Holding
The TPS statute bars judicial review of respondents’ non-constitutional
claims. Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) provides that there is no judicial review of
any “determination” of the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the
designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign
state. Whether “determination” means an individual decision or the process
leading up to a decision, the bar reaches all of respondents'
non-constitutional claims, including their APA claims and the subsidiary
procedural steps that merge into the final agency action.
The Miot respondents’ equal protection claim — that Haiti’s TPS
designation was terminated because of race — is unlikely to succeed. Even
assuming heightened scrutiny under Arlington Heights applies, none of the
cited statements by the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and all
expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications; indeed,
respondents themselves offer a race-neutral explanation for the Government’s
action. Reversed and remanded.
The Court
Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of
the Court except as to Part III–A. The Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and
Kavanaugh joined that opinion in full, and Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined
except for Part III–A. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice
Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson
joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Mullin v. Doe, written by Justice Alito.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Alito. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.