2026-07-27T08:00:25.698Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/27/politics/temporary-protected-status-supreme-court-decision
达莉亚·多伊仍抱有希望。
最高法院限制下级法院阻止特朗普政府撤销临时移民保护措施一个月后，全国范围内为阻止政府针对这名叙利亚公民以及其他数千名逃离战争和自然灾害的移民的计划而展开的新斗争正愈演愈烈。
“我压力巨大，充满不确定性，”2015年叙利亚内战加剧后抵达美国的多伊告诉CNN。“我们除了继续战斗、绝不放弃之外，别无选择。”
多伊是化名，是起诉政府撤销这项人道主义计划的多名叙利亚人之一，该计划为该国近4000名移民提供临时保护身份（TPS）。
最高法院的保守派多数派在6月底裁定，法官无权审查国土安全部长基于政府未遵循正当法律程序的主张，撤销一系列国家临时保护身份的决定。
但大法官们为TPS受益人提起针对政府行为的宪法诉讼保留了空间。近日，代表多伊和少数几个国家移民的法律维权人士要么将此前的程序性诉求重新包装为新的宪法主张，要么表示计划尽快这样做。
对于其中几个国家，为TPS身份辩护的律师如今也提出了新颖的非宪法性论点，质疑国土安全部最初是否有权终止这些保护措施。
代表也门移民挑战撤销TPS身份的宪法权利中心律师沙恩·卡迪达尔表示，时间至关重要。他指出，司法部正在推动一项举措，要求此前裁定政府败诉的法官迅速撤销这些禁令，以便官员们能够开始驱逐近万名合法居住在美国的移民，他们分别来自海地、叙利亚、南苏丹、埃塞俄比亚、缅甸、索马里和也门。
“所有人都在设法通过程序性周旋，将阻止撤销的初始禁令维持足够长的时间，以便论证这些新诉求，”卡迪达尔说。“最高法院的裁决引发了更激烈的诉讼热潮。”
“如果说特朗普第二届政府的整体主题是混乱，”卡迪达尔补充道，“那么这将带来更大的混乱。”
迄今为止，已有三家联邦法院作出不利于政府的裁决。
周五，波士顿的布莱恩·墨菲法官表示，在就新诉求进行审理期间，他将维持为逃离埃塞俄比亚的移民提供的TPS身份。前一天，同样任职于波士顿的帕蒂·萨里斯法官表示，她将暂时保留为南苏丹移民提供的TPS身份。早些时候，芝加哥的马修·肯内利法官裁定，官员们至少在8月7日之前不得终止为缅甸移民提供的人道主义保护。
CNN已联系司法部征求评论。
政府方面声称，最高法院的裁决完全认可了其撤销TPS身份的行为，白宫上月在一份声明中表示，大法官们的“决定性”裁决赋予了政府“完全的权力”终止这些保护措施。
https://www.cnn.com/
由大法官塞缪尔·阿利托撰写的最高法院裁决称，法院不得审理针对前部长克里斯蒂·诺姆的指控，即她在认定一系列国家不再需要获得人道主义救济的指定资格前，未充分与其他机构协商，涉嫌违反法律。
代表南苏丹、缅甸、埃塞俄比亚和也门移民的律师随后迅速要求法官发布新的禁令，阻止政策变更，理由是政府的行为将违宪剥夺移民的自由和财产权益。
根据最新数据，这四个国家共有近1万人受益于TPS身份。
这些宪法诉求依据的是第五修正案的正当程序条款，该条款规定，政府未经联邦法律规定的程序和流程，不得剥夺一个人的“生命、自由或财产”。
在所有针对政府终止TPS身份的诉讼中，挑战者均表示，诺姆围绕该计划的行为并非基于合理决策，且无视法律要求，即在撤销特定国家移民的驱逐保护措施前，她应寻求政府其他部门的意见——而政府对此多次予以否认。
缅甸移民的律师本周向肯内利法官表示，工作许可和驱逐保护“是能够触发宪法规定的程序保障的自由和财产权益”。
“部长在发布终止令时无视了这些保障措施，”律师们在法庭文件中写道。
维权人士还要求法官审查诺姆在撤销身份指定时是否超越了其职权范围。
他们辩称，2001年9月11日恐怖袭击后成立国土安全部，并将包括一系列移民相关职责在内的部分职能从其他机构转移至该部时，撤销TPS身份指定的权力并未包含在内。
根据这一论点，该权力仍属于司法部长，该计划在20世纪90年代设立时，司法部长被指定为该项目的初始最终决策者。
这种被称为“越权”的主张，最高法院同样未正式禁止诉讼当事人在TPS相关案件中提出。
国会“明确将撤销TPS身份指定的权力赋予了司法部长。国会从未将该权力转移给国土安全部部长或任何其他官员，”代表埃塞俄比亚TPS持有者的律师上周对波士顿的一名法官表示。这个东非国家有超过4000人通过该计划居住在美国。
特朗普政府对这些主张予以反驳，司法部律师在涉及也门的案件中援引了最高法院意见中的一句话：“TPS决策的责任归属国土安全部部长。”
他们周三告诉纽约市的一名法官，这句话证实了诺姆在决定撤销该国的TPS身份时是在其职权范围内行事的。也门的TPS身份始于2015年，当时该国武装冲突导致居住在美国的国民无法安全返回。近1400名也门公民拥有TPS身份。
此外，司法部辩称，如果挑战者的理论正确，“那就意味着也门从一开始就从未被正式指定获得TPS身份，也就没有身份可撤销。”
正在进行的诉讼中还有一个额外的波折：海地TPS持有者试图深入审查政府内部文件，寻找证据证明该国的保护措施被撤销是基于歧视性动机。
一名联邦法官今年早些时候指出，唐纳德·特朗普总统长期公开贬低海地及其人民，因此她得出结论，撤销这个岛国的人道主义保护计划的决定至少部分出于种族敌意。约33万海地人通过该计划居住在美国。
尽管阿利托和他的保守派同僚上月驳回了该法官的裁决，称仅凭公开言论似乎不足以支持下级法院的判决，但大法官们并未阻止海地人通过证据开示程序获取更多证据，以支持其诉讼主张。
https://www.cnn.com/
“该裁决中没有任何内容表明，本案原告不能尝试收集必要的额外证据，以证明其平等保护诉求，”代表这些移民的律师本月早些时候对华盛顿特区联邦法院的美国地区法官安娜·雷耶斯说道。
他们援引了负责缅甸案件的芝加哥法官最近的一项裁决，该裁决称证据开示并非徒劳，因为“有可能内部决策证据会揭示公开言论中未明确体现的歧视动机”。
美国移民理事会高级研究员亚伦·赖希林-梅尔尼克指出，此案是基于初步记录提交至最高法院的，而雷耶斯“并不严格受约束，必须在更完整的记录上得出与大法官们相同的结论”。
“原告有可能能够补充记录，提供更多种族敌意的证据，从而有可能推翻最高法院的裁决，”他补充道。
随着诉讼的推进，法院面临着一个棘手的问题：在此期间，TPS持有者该何去何从。
就在最高法院6月25日作出裁决后不久，司法部律师就在下级法院发起了积极的程序性斗争，试图迅速撤销那些阻止政府实施撤销TPS身份决定的裁决。
他们表示，最高法院的意见意味着任何进一步的法律程序都将是徒劳——尽管很明显，特朗普的反对者希望再次尝试阻止这些保护措施被撤销。
“政府对裁决的含义采取了过于宽泛的解读，”在一起提交至最高法院的案件中代表多伊和其他叙利亚TPS持有者的卢佩·阿吉雷说道。“还有新的论点和新的诉求，或许能够为人们保住这些至关重要的保护措施。”
正如墨菲、萨里斯和肯内利法官同意暂时保留为南苏丹和缅甸移民提供的保护措施一样，他们几乎没有表明最终会如何裁决这些新诉求，仅表示希望在诉讼继续期间“维持现状”。
Inside the fights to maintain TPS status for thousands after the Supreme Court sided with Trump
2026-07-27T08:00:25.698Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/27/politics/temporary-protected-status-supreme-court-decision
Dahlia Doe is holding on to hope.
A month after the Supreme Court curtailed lower courts’ ability to block the Trump administration from revoking temporary deportation protections, fresh efforts to halt the government’s plans for the Syrian national and thousands of others fleeing war and natural disasters are heating up around the country.
“I feel so much stress and uncertainty,” Doe, who arrived in the US in 2015 as the civil war in Syria intensified, told CNN. “There’s nothing for us to do but to continue fighting and not give up.”
Doe, a pseudonym, is one of several Syrians who sued to keep the government from revoking the humanitarian program, known as Temporary Protected Status for nearly 4,000 others from the country.
The high court’s conservative supermajority said in late June that judges do not have the power to review challenges to the Homeland Security secretary’s decision to end TPS for a slew of countries based on claims the administration didn’t follow proper legal procedure.
But the justices left the door open for TPS beneficiaries to bring constitutional challenges to the administration’s actions. In recent days, legal advocates representing Doe and migrants from a handful of countries have either repackaged their earlier procedural arguments into new constitutional claims or signaled plans to do so soon.
For several of those countries, attorneys defending the TPS designations are also now pushing novel, non-constitutional arguments about whether the department has the authority in the first place to terminate the protections.
Time is of the essence, said Shane Kadidal, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights who is challenging the revocation of TPS for migrants from Yemen. He pointed to an effort underway by the Justice Department to get judges who previously ruled against the administration to quickly lift those orders so officials can begin deporting scores of migrants from Haiti, Syria, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Burma, Somalia and Yemen who have been living legally in the United States.
“Everyone’s trying to do procedural wrangling to keep the initial orders that prevented the termination in place for long enough to argue these new claims,” Kadidal said. “The Supreme Court decision has triggered an even bigger frenzy of litigation.”
“If the overarching theme of the second Trump administration is chaos,” Kadidal added, “this is going to bring even more chaos.”
Thus far, three federal courts have ruled against the administration.
On Friday, Boston-based Judge Brian Murphy said he will keep the TPS designation for migrants who fled Ethiopia while he weighs new claims from them. A day earlier, Judge Patti Saris, who also sits in Boston, said she will keep the TPS designation for South Sudan in place for now. Earlier, Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago said officials are barred from ending the humanitarian protections for Burma through at least August 7.
CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
The administration has claimed that the Supreme Court decision fully blessed its actions revoking the TPS designations, with the White House saying in a statement last month that the justices’ “decisive” ruling gave it “full authority to terminate” the protections.
https://www.cnn.com/
The high court’s decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, said courts are barred from weighing claims that then-Secretary Kristi Noem violated the law by allegedly not adequately consulting with other agencies before she decided that a slew of countries no longer needed to be designated for the humanitarian relief.
Attorneys representing migrants who fled South Sudan, Burma, Ethiopia and Yemen then quickly asked judges to issue new rulings blocking the policy changes based on an argument that the government’s actions would unconstitutionally deprive the migrants of their liberty and property interests.
Nearly 10,000 people from those four countries combined benefit from TPS, according to the most recent data.
The constitutional claims are being made under the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says the government cannot deprive a person of their “life, liberty or property” without first following protocols and procedures laid out in federal law.
In all of the cases over the administration’s termination of TPS, the challengers have said that Noem’s actions around the program were not based on reasoned decision-making and flouted the law’s mandate that she seek input from other parts of the government before removing deportation protections for migrants from a particular country – an accusation the government has repeatedly denied.
Work authorization permits and removal protections, lawyers for immigrants from Burma told Kennelly this week, “are liberty and property interests that trigger procedural safeguards under the Constitution.”
“The secretary flouted those safeguards when issuing the termination,” the attorneys wrote in court papers.
Advocates are also asking judges to scrutinize whether Noem exceeded her authority in revoking the designations.
They’re arguing that when DHS was set up in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and certain functions were moved over to it from other agencies, including a bevy of immigration-related responsibilities, the power to revoke TPS designations was not among them.
That authority, the argument goes, still lies with the attorney general, who was named as the initial final decision-maker for the program when it was established in the 1990s.
The type of claim the argument is being made under is known as “ultra vires,” and the high court similarly did not formally say litigants were barred from bringing it in cases over TPS.
Congress “unambiguously assigned the authority to terminate TPS designations to the attorney general. And Congress never transferred that authority to the DHS secretary or any other official,” lawyers representing TPS holders from Ethiopia told a judge in Boston last week. Over 4,000 people from the East African nation are living in the US because of the program.
The Trump administration has pushed back on these assertions, with DOJ attorneys in a case involving Yemen pointing to a line in the Supreme Court’s opinion that said, “responsibility for TPS decisions rests with the secretary of Homeland Security.”
They told a judge in New York City on Wednesday that the line confirms Noem was acting within her authority when she decided to yank away the TPS designation for the country, which dates back to 2015, when armed conflict there made it unsafe for nationals living in the US to return. Nearly 1,400 Yeminis have TPS status.
Moreover, if the challengers’ theory was correct, DOJ argued, “it would mean that Yemen was never properly designated for TPS in the first place and there is no designation to terminate.”
One additional wrinkle in the ongoing litigation is an effort by Haitian TPS holders to peek under the government’s hood to look for evidence showing that protections for that country were revoked on a discriminatory basis.
A federal judge had pointed to President Donald Trump’s long history of publicly denigrating Haiti and its people when she concluded earlier this year that the decision to revoke the humanitarian program for the island country was motivated at least in part by racial animus. Some 330,000 Haitians are living in the US thanks to the program.
While Alito and his conservative colleagues dismissed the judge’s decision last month, saying the public comments alone did not appear to be enough to support the lower-court ruling, the justices did not stop the Haitians from attempting to obtain more evidence through the discovery process that could support their case.
https://www.cnn.com/
“Nothing in the decision suggests that the plaintiffs here cannot try to marshal the additional evidence necessary to prove their equal protection claim,” lawyers for the migrants told US District Judge Ana Reyes, of the federal court in Washington, DC, earlier this month.
They cited a recent decision from the Chicago judge overseeing the Myanmar case that said discovery would not be futile because it’s “possible that evidence of internal decisionmaking may reveal a discriminatory motive not clearly reflected in public statements.”
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted that the case landed before the Supreme Court on a preliminary record and that Reyes “is not strictly bound to reach the same conclusion (the justices did) on a fuller record.”
“It’s possible that the plaintiffs may be able to supplement the record with additional evidence of racial animus, such that it could overcome the Supreme Court’s finding,” he added.
As the litigation plays out, courts have been faced with tough questions about what happens to the TPS holders in the meantime.
Just after the high court handed down its ruling on June 25, DOJ attorneys mounted an aggressive procedural fight in lower courts in a bid to quickly undo rulings that prevented the administration from effectuating decisions to revoke the TPS designations.
They said the Supreme Court’s opinion meant that any further legal proceedings would happen in vain – even as it became clear that Trump’s opponents want to try again to prevent the protections from being rescinded.
“The government is taking an overly broad view of what the decision means,” said Lupe Aguirre, who represents Doe and the other Syrian TPS holders in one of the cases that went up to the high court. “There are new arguments and new claims that might preserve these really critical protections for folks.”
As Murphy, Saris and Kennelly agreed to keep the protections in place for now for migrants from South Sudan and Burma, they gave little indication of how they may ultimately rule on the new claims, simply saying they wanted to “preserve the status quo” while the litigation continues.