The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday in favor of the Trump administration’s bid to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants, stripping them of legal safeguards that had previously protected them from deportation.

In an unsigned order aligned with its typical handling of emergency applications, the court sided with the Department of Justice, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson standing as the lone public dissenter. This marked a legal advancement for the administration of Donald Trump, who had previously vowed mass deportations of undocumented immigrants upon returning to the White House.

TPS, a humanitarian program offering work permits and deportation relief, is granted to nationals from countries experiencing conflict, natural disasters, or extraordinary conditions. It was extended to Venezuelans under former President Joe Biden, citing the economic collapse and alleged political repression under President Nicolas Maduro.

Just days before leaving office in January, Biden had extended those protections by 18 months, however, Trump’s administration moved swiftly to dismantle the policy, signaling a dramatic shift in immigration enforcement ahead of his return.

Legal challenges and lower court rulings

Legal opposition to the termination of Venezuelan TPS protections emerged quickly.

In March, District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco issued a temporary block against the Trump administration’s move, arguing that the decision appeared to stem from racial bias and an unjust portrayal of Venezuelans as inherently criminal.

Related News

Arab, regional states reaffirm support for Syria sovereignty

George Abdallah: Europe's longest-held political prisoner to be freed

Chen emphasized that TPS holders from Venezuela were statistically more likely to hold bachelor’s degrees and less likely to commit crimes compared to US citizens, writing, “Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism.”

Following this, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals refused a request from the Trump administration to lift Judge Chen’s order, prompting the Justice Department to escalate the case to the Supreme Court. The administration argued that the ruling improperly restricted the executive branch’s authority over immigration policy, a domain constitutionally granted to the president.

Plaintiffs, including TPS recipients and the National TPS Alliance, countered that Venezuela remains unsafe for return and warned that the administration’s request, if granted, would not only force thousands to return to precarious conditions but also inflict significant economic damage by removing nearly 350,000 individuals from the US workforce.

Political and public reactions

The ruling sparked immediate backlash from Democratic lawmakers and immigrant rights advocates.

Representative Pramila Jayapal, ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, condemned the decision, calling it “shameful” that the Trump administration would revoke protections from individuals who entered the country legally while fleeing devastation.

“It is shameful that the Trump administration would pull the rug out from so many Venezuelans who came into the country lawfully, fleeing untold violence and devastation in their home country,” she stated.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz also criticized the court’s decision, writing on social media that Venezuelan TPS holders had fled a “murderous dictator” and built lives in the US. She described the move as “atrocious” and reaffirmed her support for legislative protections, saying, “This fight is NOT over. We must pass my Venezuela TPS Act to keep our community safe.”

While the Supreme Court’s decision directly impacts Venezuelan nationals, it arrives amid a broader campaign by the Trump administration to curtail humanitarian immigration programs.

In April, the administration also rescinded TPS designations for thousands of Afghan and Cameroonian immigrants, though those cases remain separate from the court’s recent ruling. Reports have emerged of preemptive arrests targeting TPS holders, despite legal provisions explicitly barring detention based solely on immigration status.

These developments raise further concerns about the scope and enforcement of immigration policy under the current administration and the future of those relying on TPS for protection.