WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday over whether the Trump administration can strip Temporary Protected Status from Haitian and Syrian immigrants. A majority of the court's conservative justices questioned challengers in a manner supportive of the administration's position to end TPS for the two groups.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that the TPS statute bars any court review of the administration's decisions and that a separate law providing procedural fairness does not allow courts to review the Homeland Security agency's decision-making. Sauer argued that the 1990 legislation grants the Secretary of Homeland Security discretion to decide on designations.

Congress enacted the TPS program in 1990, and every president since has extended it for designated countries. The program does not offer a pathway to citizenship but allows citizens from designated countries to live and work in the United States if they cannot return safely to their home countries. Designations can be extended or terminated by the Department of Homeland Security. Nearly 1.3 million people held TPS at the start of President Donald Trump's second term.

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether the procedural steps required by the statute are reviewable, Sauer responded "Correct." Justice Elena Kagan noted that the statute requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to consult with the U.S. State Department about conditions in countries from which people have fled. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked what would happen if the Secretary used a Ouija board to make decisions under the statute.

Sotomayor quoted Trump as describing Haiti as a "filthy, dirty, and disgusting s-hole country" and as saying illegal immigrants were "poisoning the blood of America." Jackson said, "So the position of the United States is that we have an actual racial epithet that we aren't allowed to look at all the context." Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether individuals with TPS status could bring a challenge based on race discrimination, and Sauer appeared to concede the point.

The Trump administration compared its effort with the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld a travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries. Chief Justice John Roberts told Sauer that the case involved entry restrictions rather than the TPS program. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh did not ask questions during Sauer's argument.

Attorney Ahilan Arulanantham, representing challengers, said "people should be able to have faith that the government would conduct a lawful and thorough review of which countries are eligible to be in the program." He said that a ruling in the administration's favor would give a future DHS Secretary extraordinary power to alter immigration status for people already in the country and those who could be granted TPS in the future.

Federal judges in New York and Washington, D.C., previously issued rulings halting the administration's actions to terminate TPS as previously provided to more than 350,000 Haitian and 6,100 Syrian nationals. A decision in the case is not expected until the end of June.