The Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the Trump administration to revoke Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria has put roughly 147,000 TPS holders in Texas at heightened risk of losing work authorization and protection from deportation, according to reporting by Texas Public Radio and Houston Public Media.

The 6-3 decision, issued June 25 in Mullin v. Doe and a consolidated Haiti case, overturned lower-court orders that had delayed the administration’s termination of TPS for the two countries. The ruling does not itself deport anyone, but it clears a major legal obstacle that had kept protections in place while affected immigrants challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s process.

TPS is a humanitarian immigration program created by Congress in 1990 for nationals of countries where armed conflict, environmental disaster or other extraordinary conditions make safe return difficult. It does not provide a direct path to citizenship, but it can allow eligible immigrants already in the United States to live and work legally for renewable periods. The program currently protects about 1.3 million people from 17 countries, the Associated Press reported.

For Texas, the ruling is particularly consequential because the state is home to one of the country’s largest TPS populations. Texas Public Radio reported that roughly 147,000 TPS holders live in the state, including immigrants tied to large communities from Venezuela, Haiti and El Salvador. The immediate Supreme Court decision concerned Haiti and Syria, but legal specialists said its interpretation of the TPS statute could make it harder to challenge future terminations involving other countries.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, said the federal TPS statute bars judicial review of nonconstitutional claims challenging DHS decisions to end a country’s designation. The majority said the term “determination” in the law covers not only the final decision to terminate TPS but also the process leading to that decision, including how DHS reviewed country conditions and consulted other agencies.

That reasoning is central to the case’s broader impact. Lower courts had found that Haitian and Syrian TPS holders were likely to succeed on arguments that DHS failed to follow required procedures before ending the designations. The Supreme Court disagreed that federal judges could pause the terminations on those grounds, finding that Congress had placed such determinations largely outside normal court review.

The majority also rejected arguments by Haitian plaintiffs that the termination was unlawfully tainted by discriminatory intent. Alito wrote that the statements cited by challengers were insufficient to show that the decision to end Haiti’s TPS designation was based on race. The ruling therefore removes the preliminary relief that had protected many beneficiaries while litigation continued.

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan argued that the statute still allows courts to review whether DHS followed mandatory procedures before ending TPS. She also said the Haiti plaintiffs had presented evidence that racial bias played a role in the decision, and wrote that the affected immigrants should have been allowed to remain protected while their cases proceeded.

The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the ruling. James Percival, DHS general counsel, said in a statement reported by AP and local outlets that the decision was a win for the rule of law and emphasized that the “T” in TPS stands for “temporary.” The administration has argued that the program has been extended far beyond its original purpose and that the executive branch must retain authority to decide when country conditions no longer justify protection.

Immigration advocates and some Democratic lawmakers responded that the ruling will disrupt families and local economies. Rep. Christian Menefee, a Houston Democrat, said TPS holders have worked, raised families, started businesses and contributed to communities while following the rules of the program. His office said Texas’ TPS population includes large numbers of people whose work authorization is tied to their protected status.

The employment consequences could be significant. TPS holders often work in health care, construction, food services, hospitality, caregiving and other sectors that depend heavily on immigrant labor. When TPS ends for a country, beneficiaries generally lose the employment authorization attached to that status unless they have another immigration category, pending application or court protection. Employers may then face reverification issues, and families may lose income before any removal proceedings begin.

For Haitian immigrants, the decision lands against the backdrop of continuing warnings about violence, instability and humanitarian crisis in Haiti. The Supreme Court majority noted that Haiti was first designated for TPS after the devastating 2010 earthquake and that the designation had been extended for years. The dissent stressed that past administrations repeatedly found Haiti and Syria too dangerous for safe return, while the Trump administration concluded that termination was warranted.

The ruling also fits into a broader series of Supreme Court decisions strengthening the administration’s position in immigration cases. On the same day, the court handed the government a separate win involving asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border. Reuters reported June 26 that the court’s recent immigration decisions have given the administration substantial legal support for its restrictive agenda, even as other challenges continue in lower courts.

In practical terms, TPS holders in Texas now face a period of legal uncertainty. Some may have other pending immigration claims, family-based petitions, asylum applications or employment-based options. Others may have no immediate alternative once their TPS-linked work permits expire. Immigration lawyers and community groups are urging affected people to review their individual status rather than assume that TPS termination automatically means immediate removal.

The court’s ruling does not erase every possible legal challenge. Constitutional claims may still be litigated in some circumstances, and Congress could act to extend or redesign protections for specific populations. But the decision substantially limits one of the main tools TPS holders had used to delay terminations: arguing that DHS failed to follow proper administrative procedures before ending a country’s designation.

For Texas cities including Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio, the consequences may unfold through workplaces, schools, churches and mixed-status households rather than courtrooms alone. TPS recipients who have lived legally in the United States for years may now have to decide whether to seek another legal path, prepare for possible removal proceedings or remain in a narrowing legal gray zone as DHS implements the Supreme Court’s decision.