The U.S. Supreme Court has begun hearing arguments in a major case that could determine the fate of about 1.3 million immigrants living in the United States under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

The case centers on whether the Trump administration can end protections that have allowed migrants from countries such as Haiti and Syria to live and work legally in the country.

The hearing, held on Wednesday, April 29th, brings together two consolidated cases involving more than 350,000 Haitians and about 6,000 Syrians.

At stake is whether the administration followed the law when it moved to terminate their protected status or whether the decision was driven by political considerations.

What the government is arguing

The Trump administration, through Solicitor General D. John Sauer, told the court that the law gives the Homeland Security Secretary broad authority to end TPS designations. He argued that courts should not interfere with decisions tied to immigration policy and national security.

According to the government, the Department of Homeland Security properly reviewed conditions in Haiti and Syria before deciding that protections were no longer justified. The administration has maintained that continued protections are not in the national interest.

Sauer pointed to the TPS statute, which limits judicial review of decisions to designate or terminate countries for purposes of the program. The government argues this language prevents courts from second-guessing executive decisions on immigration matters.

What migrants and advocates say

Lawyers representing TPS holders disagree. They argue that the administration failed to follow the required legal process, which includes consulting federal agencies and conducting a genuine review of conditions in each country.

Also Read: Illegal Immigrants Face New Crackdown as Trump Targets Asylum System Loopholes

Ahilan T. Arulanantham, representing Syrian TPS holders, told the court that the process was rushed and lacked proper analysis of the ongoing conflict and instability in Syria. Geoffrey M. Pipoly, representing Haitian TPS holders, said the same flaws applied to Haiti, where armed violence and political instability remain widespread.

The lawsuits were filed by TPS recipients, including doctors, engineers, students, and caregivers who have built lives in the United States.

Their lawyers argue that returning them to their home countries could expose them to serious harm or death.

They also accuse the administration of acting on political pressure rather than evidence. Court filings cite past statements by President Trump about Haitian immigrants, which advocates say show hostility toward the group and raise questions about whether the decision was impartial.

The administration has rejected those claims. Officials say the decision was based on foreign policy and security considerations, not personal or political bias.

What lower courts found

Lower federal courts previously blocked the termination of TPS for both Haiti and Syria. Judges ruled that the administration may not have conducted a meaningful review of country conditions before ending protections.

Those courts found evidence suggesting the decisions may have been made in advance, rather than based on a full assessment of humanitarian conditions. As a result, they ordered the protections to remain in place while litigation continued.

Also Read: 350,000 Immigrants Benefits as Republican Join Democrats in Opposing Trump

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis, signaling its importance and urgency. A final decision is expected later this year.

Why this matters

The outcome of this case could affect more than 1.3 million immigrants from over a dozen countries currently covered under TPS. It could determine whether they are allowed to remain in the United States or face deportation to countries still dealing with conflict, disaster, or political instability.

Beyond the individuals directly affected, the ruling will also shape the balance of power between the executive branch and the courts in immigration policy. It could define how much authority a president has to end humanitarian protections created under federal law.

The decision is also expected to influence future immigration policy under President Donald Trump, who has made ending long-term protections a key part of his broader immigration agenda.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in the coming months.