Haitian Citizens Urge Supreme Court to Dismiss TPS Dispute, Citing New Evidence

A group of Haitian citizens who benefit from Temporary Protected Status (TPS) have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss the ongoing legal dispute over the Trump administration's attempt to end the program for Haiti. In a motion filed on Tuesday, they urged the justices to decline to rule on the case, arguing that new evidence reveals the administration's decision was based on a false statement and improper procedures. The Supreme Court had heard oral arguments in the case in late April after the Trump administration appealed lower court rulings that blocked the termination of TPS for Haitians.

The TPS program, established by Congress in 1990, allows the Department of Homeland Security to designate nationals from countries experiencing natural disasters, armed conflict, or other extraordinary conditions to remain in the U.S. and work legally. Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 following a devastating earthquake, and the designation was repeatedly renewed until 2025. In July, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem issued a notice terminating the program for Haiti, a move that a group of Haitian nationals challenged in federal court, arguing it violated federal law and was racially discriminatory.

Lower courts ruled in favor of the Haitian nationals, barring the government from ending TPS while the legal challenge continued. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear both the Haiti case and a similar case involving Syrian nationals. The justices heard arguments on April 29. Now, the Haitian citizens have asked the court to dismiss the case without a ruling, a process known as "dismiss as improvidently granted," citing "newly discovered facts" that they say undermine the administration's position.

According to the motion, the plaintiffs obtained new documents from the government indicating that Noem's July 1 notice terminating Haiti's TPS "relied on a knowingly false statement"—specifically, that she had consulted with the State Department when she had not. The documents also show that the decision was based on an unprecedented rationale—U.S. national interest—and was issued after a political appointee overruled career officials who had recommended extending the designation. The plaintiffs argue these facts, if true, would show that the termination did not comply with federal law and was motivated by discriminatory intent.

The Haitian nationals contend that because the facts are still unfolding, the Supreme Court should not decide the case now. Instead, they ask the court to return the case to lower courts for a final decision after full fact-finding is complete. The motion applies only to the Haiti case, leaving the separate challenge involving Syrian nationals unaffected. The Supreme Court has not yet responded to the motion.