The Haiti TPS lawsuits have, for now, kept Temporary Protected Status in place for roughly 350,000 Haitian nationals. A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s termination one day before it was set to take effect, the D.C. Circuit refused to lift that block, and the Supreme Court heard argument on April 29, 2026, in Trump v. Miot. A decision is expected before the end of the Court’s term.
Where Haiti TPS Stands Right Now
Haitian TPS holders retain their status and work authorization under Judge Ana C. Reyes’s February 2, 2026 order. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has issued guidance confirming that employment authorization documents for Haitian TPS holders remain valid, and employers have been directed to follow updated I-9 and E-Verify procedures that reflect the court order. DHS has said publicly that it disagrees with the ruling and is coordinating with the Department of Justice on further legal steps.
The Supreme Court did not disturb the district court’s stay when it took the case, so protections continue while the justices deliberate.
How the Administration Tried to End Haiti TPS
Haiti was first designated for TPS in January 2010 after the earthquake, and the Biden administration had extended and re-designated the country’s status through February 3, 2026. The Trump administration moved to undo that in three steps.
On February 24, 2025, DHS published a Federal Register notice attempting a “partial vacatur” of Haiti’s TPS. That notice shortened the Biden-era 18-month extension to 12 months and pulled the expiration back from February 2026 to August 2025.
On July 1, 2025, DHS announced a full termination of Haiti’s TPS designation, originally set to take effect September 2, 2025. Secretary Kristi Noem said “Haiti no longer meets the statutory requirements for TPS” and that allowing Haitian nationals to remain was “inconsistent with U.S. national interests.” At the same time, the State Department’s own travel advisory warned Americans not to travel to Haiti “for any reason” because of gang violence and political instability.
After a federal court required that any termination not take effect before the original February 2026 expiration, DHS published a superseding termination notice on November 28, 2025, setting the new effective date at February 3, 2026.
The Lawsuits Blocking Termination
Four cases have shaped where Haiti TPS stands today.
National TPS Alliance v. Noem
Filed February 19, 2025 in the Northern District of California, this suit was later amended to cover Haitian TPS holders after the partial vacatur. On September 5, 2025, the district court entered final judgment setting aside the secretary’s actions, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed on January 28, 2026, holding that “no explicit, implied, or inherent authority” exists in the TPS statute for the secretary to vacate a prior designation.
Haitian Evangelical Clergy Association v. Trump
Filed March 14, 2025 in the Eastern District of New York by nine Haitian TPS holders, the Haitian Evangelical Clergy Association, and SEIU Local 32BJ. On July 1, 2025, Judge Brian M. Cogan granted partial summary judgment, finding the secretary had exceeded her authority with the partial vacatur. A final judgment on July 15, 2025 ensured Haiti’s TPS grants would not terminate before February 3, 2026.
Haitian Americans United v. Trump
Filed March 3, 2025 in the District of Massachusetts by Lawyers for Civil Rights on behalf of Haitian-Americans United, the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, the UndocuBlack Network, and four pseudonymous individuals. The case raised claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, and the theory that the secretary had acted beyond her statutory authority. It was stayed pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit proceedings.
Miot v. Trump
Filed July 30, 2025 in the District of Columbia by five Haitian TPS holders: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, Rudolph Civil, Marlene Gail Noble, Marica Merline Laguerre, and Vilbrun Dorsainvil. They alleged that termination would expose them to detention and deportation, separate them from their families, and strip their work authorization. This is the case now at the Supreme Court.
Judge Reyes’s February 2026 Ruling
One day before Haiti’s TPS was scheduled to expire, Judge Reyes issued an 83-page opinion blocking the termination. She found the plaintiffs “substantially likely” to prevail on several grounds.
On the statutory question, Judge Reyes held that Secretary Noem had violated the TPS statute’s consultation requirement. The law requires the secretary to consult with “appropriate agencies” before reviewing conditions in a designated country. The government admitted the secretary had not consulted the U.S. Ambassador to Haiti, the U.S. Embassy, State Department regional offices, or the Secretary of State. The court characterized the entire consultation as a single 53-minute email exchange with a State Department staffer, calling the process “Humpty Dumpty-like.” Documents cited in the proceedings indicated DHS had not performed the required consultation before the July termination, despite formal announcements claiming otherwise.
On equal protection, Judge Reyes applied the framework from Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. and found it “substantially likely” that the termination was driven by “hostility to nonwhite immigrants.” The court cited Secretary Noem’s social media posts calling Haitians and people from other nonwhite countries “leeches,” “entitlement junkies,” and “foreign invaders.” Three days after announcing the termination, Noem had posted: “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.” The court also referenced President Trump’s characterization of Haiti as a “shithole” country and his false claims about Haitian immigrants “eating the pets” in Springfield, Ohio. Judge Reyes wrote that even without the president’s statements, the secretary’s “own expressed animus towards nonwhite foreigners would support a stay.”
The court also pointed to a “pattern and practice” in which Secretary Noem had terminated every TPS designation that reached her desk, twelve out of twelve, calling it “unprecedented” and suggestive of a “preordained” result rather than the individualized, country-specific review the statute demands.
The D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court
The administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On March 6, 2026, a divided three-judge panel upheld Judge Reyes’s order 2-to-1 and denied the government’s emergency request for a stay. The court found the government had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits.
The administration then went to the Supreme Court. On March 16, 2026, the Court granted certiorari before judgment in Trump v. Miot and consolidated it with Mullin v. Doe, a parallel challenge to the termination of TPS for Syrian nationals. The justices did not disturb the district court’s stay while the case is pending. Oral arguments were held on April 29, 2026. The central question is whether the administration can lawfully end TPS for Haitian and Syrian nationals given the procedural and constitutional challenges raised.
Earlier, in October 2025, the Court had granted an emergency stay in the Venezuelan portion of the National TPS Alliance case, allowing the administration to proceed with terminating TPS for roughly 300,000 Venezuelans. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan would have denied the stay, and Justice Jackson dissented, writing that the Court “misjudged the irreparable harm.” That order applied to Venezuelan TPS, not Haitian TPS.
What a Ruling Could Change
If the Supreme Court sides with the administration, the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation could take effect, exposing hundreds of thousands of Haitian nationals to loss of work authorization and possible removal. If the Court affirms the lower courts, the procedural and constitutional limits identified by Judge Reyes and the D.C. Circuit will hold, with implications for every other TPS country the administration has moved to end. Until the decision comes down, Haitian TPS holders remain protected under the existing court order.