Mullin v. Doe | 25-1083 | Docket Link: Here

Consolidated with Trump v. Miot 25-1084 | Docket Link: Here

Argument Date: 4/29/2026

Question Presented: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A)'s judicial review bar precludes APA challenges to the Secretary's termination of Syria's Temporary Protected Status designation, and if reviewable, whether the termination violated the APA.

Overview: Emergency stay application challenges Secretary Mullin's termination of Temporary Protected Status for 6,132 Syrian nationals. Central questions: whether courts may review TPS termination decisions at all, and whether the Secretary followed required consultation and country-conditions procedures.

Posture: S.D.N.Y. postponed Syria's TPS termination; Second Circuit denied stay; government now seeks Supreme Court intervention.

Main Arguments:

• Government (Applicant): (1) Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) bars all APA challenges to TPS terminations; (2) Secretary validly consulted agencies and invoked national interest; (3) Courts cannot brand a new administration's policy priorities as pretext
• Syrian TPS Holders (Respondents): (1) Judicial review bar covers country-conditions determinations only, not procedural violations; (2) Secretary never genuinely consulted agencies and invoked an extra-statutory factor; (3) Concrete harms to 6,132 Syrians facing deportation to an active war zone favor denial

Implications:

(A) Government victory:

• The judicial review bar broadly strips courts of authority to review all TPS termination decisions
• Clear path for DHS Secretary to implement terminations across all thirteen countries — potentially stripping hundreds of thousands of TPS holders of legal status with no judicial recourse.
• TPS becomes a pure presidential foreign-policy tool.

(B) TPS holders victory:

• Courts retain authority to enforce TPS's procedural requirements;
• The Secretary must genuinely consult agencies and review actual country conditions;
• 6,132 Syrians retain lawful status while the Second Circuit completes full appellate review.

The Fine Print:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A): "There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection."
• 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(A): "[A]fter consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government," the Secretary "shall review the conditions in the foreign state . . . and shall determine whether the conditions for such designation . . . continue to be met."

Primary Cases:

• McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. (1991): A comparable immigration statute's reference to "a determination" described a single act — the denial of an individual application — and did not bar general collateral challenges to unconstitutional agency practices and policies; the central precedent for the TPS holders' jurisdictional argument.
• Noem v. NTPSA, 145 S. Ct. 2728 (2025) (NTPSA I) & 146 S. Ct. 23 (2025) (NTPSA II): Supreme Court stayed two district court orders blocking Venezuela's TPS termination without written explanation; the government argues these orders "inform" the equitable analysis here and reflect prior acceptance of its likelihood-of-success argument.