Published on 4/25/2026
The legal battle continues between the administration of US President Donald Trump and the judiciary over immigration, as the administration presented a “remarkable” legal argument before the Supreme Court, confirming that the judiciary does not have the authority to review its decisions to cancel or interfere with the “temporary protected status” of hundreds of thousands of immigrants.
These moves come as part of a broader campaign, led by Trump since his return to the White House in January 2025, to restrict regular and irregular immigration.
The current administration is seeking to overturn rulings issued by federal judges in New York and Washington, which prevented stripping about 350,000 Haitian citizens and 6,000 Syrians of their legal status that protects them from deportation, despite the administration’s own warnings about the danger of traveling to these two countries.
The Supreme Court, which is controlled by a majority of conservatives (6 justices to 3), is scheduled to hear arguments next Wednesday.
The conflict of powers between the administration and the judiciary
Under a US law called the Immigration Act of 1990, temporary protected status is a classification that allows immigrants from countries experiencing war, natural disasters or other crises to live and work in the United States as long as returning to their countries would expose them to danger.
The Trump administration believes that its vision of presidential powers is broad, in contrast to a limited vision of the judiciary’s jurisdiction in issues of national sovereignty and internal security.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to Reuters, “Temporary protected status is by definition temporary, and was never intended to be a path to permanent status or legal residency, no matter how much left-wing organizations wanted it.”
On the other hand, defenders of immigrants see this trend as a serious threat, as the lawyer for the affected Syrians, Ahilan Aralantham, stated that the government’s success in its endeavor would mean its ability to end the protection of immigrants “for completely arbitrary reasons” without any review of the conditions of the countries of origin.
He added that what is happening is a “war” over this legal status approved by Congress, noting that the administration did not follow the necessary legal procedures to evaluate the situation before canceling the classification.
Records indicate that the Trump administration has so far aimed to abolish protection for citizens of 13 countries out of 17 included in the system, which may affect 1.3 million immigrants.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem moved to end protected status for Syrians and Haitians late last year, claiming that it conflicted with the national interest and the difficulties of “security vetting,” which the migrants considered merely a “pretext” to implement a previous political plan.
Wednesday’s hearing comes with precedents in which the court allowed Trump to implement tough immigration policies while hearing appeals, such as deporting migrants to countries with which they have no ties, or ending protected status for Venezuelans last year.
