Friday, June 26, 2026, episode of the podcast The Excerpt: The Supreme Court has ended a humanitarian program that allowed many Haitian and Syrian immigrants to remain in the United States temporarily, handing President Donald Trump a major victory for immigrants and leaving affected families facing an uncertain future. USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent Maureen Groppe joins The Excerpt to explain what the ruling means now.
Press play in the player below to listen to the podcast and follow the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated and edited in its current format for clarity. There may be some differences between audio and text.
Podcast: For true crime stories, in-depth interviews, and more USA TODAY podcasts, click here
Dana Taylor:
The Supreme Court handed down a decision Thursday that will impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants and the communities in which they live and work, effectively ending a humanitarian program that allows them to temporarily stay in the United States, while delivering a major victory for President Donald Trump in his tough stance on immigration.
So what’s happening now?
Hello. Welcome to this excerpt from USA TODAY. I’m Dana Taylor. Today is Friday, June 26, 2026.
Joining me to talk about this important decision of the high court’s tenure is Maureen Grope, Supreme Court correspondent for USA TODAY. Maureen, it’s always great to have you on the show.
Maureen Grope:
Thank you for having me on board.
Dana Taylor:
Maureen, first of all, please prepare yourself for this very impactful decision. What program are they referring to? How many people are here for it and how long have they been here?
Maureen Grope:
The program we’re talking about is called Temporary Protected Status. Often referred to by the abbreviation TPS, it is a program created by Congress in 1990.
This is a program that allows people in the United States to legally live and work here if conditions in their home country are deemed too dangerous to return to. The program also allows you to specify countries at different times.
The two countries we are talking about here with this decision are Haiti and Syria. Haiti was first designated as too dangerous in 2010 after a devastating earthquake. And approximately 350,000 Haitian immigrants currently in this country have this protected status. In the case of Syria, its people first became eligible for this protection in 2012. In that case, we are talking about 6,000 immigrants who were protected under the program.
However, this decision may go beyond that. This sets a precedent for governments to end the program for people in other countries. In total, approximately 1.3 million people benefit from this humanitarian program.
Dana Taylor:
So we’re talking about a lot of immigrants and a lot of jobs because TPS allows this population to work legally here in the United States. Maureen, what’s going to happen logistically with these guys? Is there an appeals process before someone has to retire?
Maureen Grope:
These people will therefore lose their protected status. Unless there is another legal basis for remaining in the United States, the Department of Homeland Security could begin enforcement action. And the timing of when or if to do so will depend on the department’s priorities.
Those who have already received a final order of deportation are those most likely to be deported. Therefore, arrests and detentions of these people may increase.
For those who have not received a final order of removal, removal proceedings begin with the issuance of a notice to appear before an immigration judge. At that point, they may try to seek other types of protection, such as applying for asylum.
Dana Taylor:
The majority of Haitian immigrants in the United States, 70%, work. That’s according to the Migration Policy Institute, an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank.
As of 2021, more than 100,000 of them are healthcare workers, with most working in support jobs such as nursing assistants, personal care aides, and home health aides, MPI reports. These are generally low-wage jobs, and the entire health care industry has struggled to hire since the pandemic. What will happen to those nursing homes and hospitals?
Maureen Grope:
Well, a lot of people have said that they are tough positions to fill, and this is going to make it even harder. In fact, as this case was being argued, we saw groups representing these and other industries filing briefs with the Supreme Court pointing out that fact. I also met with Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican. We’ve seen him speak out about the contributions Haitians living in Ohio have made to our state in jobs and other ways.
Dana Taylor:
How unusual is this decision for the TPS program? Has a president or secretary of homeland security ever abruptly ended TPS before?
Maureen Grope:
What Trump is doing is extraordinary. This was not the first time he attempted this against Haitians and Syrians. He did that and also stopped protecting Venezuelans in the country. And the Supreme Court said in the case that protection could be terminated while Venezuela disputes whether it was done legally. But this time, rather than make its decision in an emergency order, or short order, as the court did for the Venezuelans, it held oral arguments and wrote a longer opinion explaining its decision in the case of the Haitians and Syrians.
Dana Taylor:
Are there any other nationalities that could immediately be stripped of their TPS status?
Maureen Grope:
Now, since Trump returned to office, his administration has moved to eliminate immigration protections for the majority of 17 countries that previous administrations declared unsafe. There are several renewal deadlines in the coming months, including for Ukraine. So let’s see what the Trump administration would do in such a situation.
Dana Taylor:
As you wrote, many of those who are here for humanitarian reasons, what kind of situation will they face if they are forced to return home?
Maureen Grope:
The State Department has issued its strongest warning against travel to Syria and Haiti due to the security risks in both countries. For example, risks in Haiti include civil unrest, limited health care, crime, terrorism, and the risk of kidnapping. And the government says if you go to Haiti, you should leave a DNA sample with your doctor or leave your dental records with your family in case the records are needed to identify the body.
Dana Taylor:
And what are we hearing from organizations fighting to keep these programs intact?
Maureen Grope:
One of the arguments made by lawyers for the Haitians was that the decision to end the group’s protections was racially motivated. President Trump has repeatedly denigrated Haitian immigrants, including falsely accusing Haitians living in Ohio of eating people’s pets. They either eat dogs or eat cats. You may remember that line from the 2024 campaign. And during his campaign, he promised large-scale deportations to Springfield, Ohio, where many Haitians live.
But Justice Alito said in Thursday’s ruling that President Trump’s comments were not overtly racist. And virtually all of them expressed policy views that could be based on race-neutral justifications. He said political discourse by prominent public figures is increasingly expressed in terms that would have scandalized the nation just a short time ago, but he said that alone is not enough to say the Trump administration’s motives are racially motivated and should stop.
Justice Elena Kagan said in a dissenting opinion that the president’s comments were so offensive and racially inflected that Alito refused to include them in the majority opinion he wrote. So she made sure to include them in her objections.
Dana Taylor:
Maureen, as I said, this ruling represents a huge victory for the president and his administration. What was their argument for ending TPS eligibility for Haitians and Syrians?
Maureen Grope:
Their main argument was that the law creating the program prohibits judges from reviewing any part of the government’s decision-making process. Immigration lawyers said the law does not prevent judges from reviewing whether they followed proper decision-making processes. They agreed that a judge cannot second-guess a decision if the process was followed correctly, but said the court could consider whether the process was actually followed. Process prescribed by law. And they said that didn’t happen in this case, that the Department of Homeland Security did not properly consult with the State Department about the situation in Syria and Haiti and reached a predetermined conclusion to end protection.
Dana Taylor:
There will be another major anti-immigrant decision before the Supreme Court’s term ends next week, and it’s about birthright citizenship. Please tell me about that incident.
Maureen Grope:
In other words, this is a challenge to an executive order issued by the president on his first day in office that limits what is known as birthright citizenship, the constitutional guarantee that anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen. And he argued it should not apply to people whose parents are in the country illegally or temporarily, such as tourists or on student or work visas. He said this should only apply to people who are legal and permanent residents of the United States.
Dana Taylor:
Maureen, does this judgment foreshadow what the High Court will decide?
Maureen Grope:
No, because the legal issues involved are very different. In the Temporary Protected Status case, there were legal questions about how to interpret the law that created the program, as well as the collateral question of whether racial animus was involved. In determining birthright citizenship, judges focus on the language of the constitutional amendment creating birthright citizenship, how it is interpreted, and the inclusion of the law that codifies that amendment. Therefore, these are completely different legal issues and may have different outcomes.
Dana Taylor:
Maureen, what is your biggest takeaway about this ruling?
Maureen Grope:
Well, I think this is a real victory for President Trump, more important than people thinking that birthright citizenship would be a huge loss. The president will likely be satisfied with this decision, as both are key parts of his hard-line approach to immigration, but it remains to be seen whether he will be satisfied with the court’s ruling on birthright citizenship.
Dana Taylor:
Maureen Grope is USA TODAY’s Supreme Court correspondent. Maureen, thank you very much for taking your time. I think it’s been a busy week.
Maureen Grope:
Well, thank you for joining me.
Dana Taylor:
Thank you for listening to USA TODAY’s The Excerpt. I’m Dana Taylor. Make “The Excerpt” part of your weekday routine. New episodes are released every weekday morning.
