Haitian citizens asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to dismiss the Haiti tps dispute as improvidently granted, saying newly discovered facts bear directly on the merits of their claims. The filing targets the Trump administration’s effort to end Haiti’s Temporary Protected Status and centers on Kristi Noem’s July 1 notice.
July 1 Notice
The citizens said Noem’s notice relied on a knowingly false statement and that she had consulted with the Department of State when in fact she had not. They also said the notice was based on an unprecedented rationale for ending Haiti’s TPS status, the U.S. national interest.
Congress enacted the Temporary Protected Status program in 1990, giving the Department of Homeland Security authority to let citizens of designated countries remain in the United States and work when return is unsafe because of a natural disaster, armed conflict, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions. Janet Napolitano designated Haiti under the program in 2010 shortly after a powerful earthquake struck the country, and the designation was repeatedly re-extended until 2025.
Washington, D.C. Challenge
After Noem announced that the Trump administration planned to end Haiti’s TPS designation, Haitian nationals in the United States went to federal court in Washington, D.C., arguing that the decision violated the federal law governing administrative agencies and the Constitution because it was intended to discriminate against them based on their race. Lower courts ruled in favor of the Haitian nationals and barred the government from ending the program while the challenge continued.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to pause that ruling and a similar ruling in favor of Syrian nationals, but the justices temporarily left the lower court orders in place. The Supreme Court then agreed to take up both cases and heard arguments on April 29.
Supreme Court Filing
In their Tuesday filing, the Haitian citizens said they had obtained new government documents showing that Noem’s July 1 notice terminating Haiti TPS relied on the assertion that Noem had consulted with the Department of State when she had not. They said the notice was published only after a political appointee issued an unusual eleventh-hour verbal directive instructing career officials to abandon their recommendation that Haiti’s TPS designation be extended.
That request puts the focus back on the legality of the July 1 notice itself, not just on whether the lower courts were right to block it. If the justices accept the request to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, the Supreme Court would leave the lower court rulings in place and the challenge to the Haiti TPS termination would remain in effect as the case stands now.
