Published on 6/26/2026
|
Last update: 04:58 (Mecca time)
“It is a decision that represents a slap in the face to immigrants who followed the law,” with these words, Columbia University law professor Elora Mukherjee summarizes the repercussions of the US Supreme Court ruling that granted the administration of President Donald Trump broad powers to end the “temporary protection” program for Haitians and Syrians.
This comment came in an opinion article in the New York Times following the announcement of the decision that would open the door for the American authorities to deport hundreds of thousands of legal residents, according to analyzes in American newspapers.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
The court found, by a majority of six judges to three, that the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to terminate temporary protection without subjecting its decisions to judicial review, in a new victory for Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda, which also includes tightening asylum and limiting paths to legal residency.
Humanitarian haven
Congress established the “Temporary Protection” program in 1990, with bipartisan support, to protect citizens of countries experiencing wars, natural disasters, or exceptional crises, and grant them the right to reside and work within the United States of America after passing strict security vetting procedures.
Haitians received this protection following the 2010 earthquake, while the program has included Syrians since 2012 due to the war. Successive US administrations continued to extend protection because the security conditions remained unstable in the two countries.
But the Trump administration, which seeks to reduce legal immigration paths, worked to end the program for 13 countries, including Haiti and Syria, considering that temporary protection had practically turned into permanent residency.
Wider powers of the president
According to the New York Times, the decision paves the way for the deportation of about 350,000 Haitians and more than 6,000 Syrians, and its impact may extend to approximately 1.3 million people from 17 countries who were enjoying temporary protection when Trump returned to the White House.
The conservative majority believed that the text of the law prevents courts from reviewing the Department of Homeland Security’s decisions to grant or terminate protection, and Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the text was “very clear,” also rejecting allegations that the decision was based on racial motivations.
On the other hand, Justice Elena Kagan considered in her dissenting opinion that Trump’s previous statements about Haitian immigrants, including falsely accusing them of eating pets and describing them as “poisoning the blood” of the United States, clearly reflect the background of the decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also warned that the court had allowed the administration to “close the door on anyone fleeing persecution.”
Humanitarian concerns
Mukherjee confirms that the program was one of the most successful immigration programs in the United States, as doctors, nurses, journalists, business owners, and construction workers benefited from it, and its holders contribute about $29 billion annually to the American economy, in addition to paying $7.8 billion in taxes.
A representative of Syrian migrants warned that the US Supreme Court has allowed the government to ignore “basic humanitarian protections passed by Congress three decades ago.”
It believes that the administration ignored the legal guarantees that required it to consult with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and evaluate the security conditions before ending protection, considering that the ruling practically abolished the system of checks and balances established by Congress.
On the other hand, the Trump administration defended its position, stressing that the word “temporary” is the essence of the program, and that protection should not turn into a “permanent amnesty.” The Department of Homeland Security’s legal advisor said the ruling represented a “victory for the rule of law and common sense.”
But the immigrants’ lawyers assert that the decision will expose thousands of families to the risk of disintegration, loss of work, and deportation to countries still suffering from terrorism, violence, and kidnapping, while the representative of the Syrian immigrants warned that the court allowed the government to ignore “basic humanitarian protections approved by Congress three decades ago.”
The New York Times and the Washington Post conclude that the ruling does not limit itself to ending temporary protection for Haitians and Syrians, but rather sets a judicial precedent that strengthens the president’s authority to shape immigration policy, and gives the Trump administration new momentum in its efforts to reshape the legal asylum and immigration system in the United States.
