What Employers Should Know About Recent TPS Changes
On June 25, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), in which the Court allowed the Trump Administration to proceed with the termination of Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) designations for Haiti and Syria. Under the TPS statute, which was enacted in 1990, the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a country for TPS if there is an ongoing armed conflict in the country, if there has been a natural disaster resulting in substantial disruption of living conditions in the country, or if there are extraordinary conditions in the country that prevent nationals from returning there safely. Haiti was designated for TPS in 2010, following a devastating earthquake. Syria was designated for TPS in 2012, during its civil war.
Supreme Court Allows TPS Terminations to Proceed
In September 2025, the Trump Administration announced termination of TPS designation for Syria. In November 2025, it announced termination of TPS designation for Haiti. Syrian and Haitian nationals sued to stop termination of the designation and obtained interim relief in federal district courts postponing the terminations. The Supreme Court, however, held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of nonconstitutional claims challenging TPS designation, extension, or termination decisions, and that the Haitian plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim was unlikely to succeed for purposes of interim relief. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mullin v. Doe permits DHS to proceed with the termination of the Haiti and Syria TPS designations and is likely to make litigation-based pauses more difficult for beneficiaries challenging other TPS terminations. At present, Trump Administration terminations of TPS designations for Ethiopia, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen have also been on hold due to litigation.
The ruling in Mullin v. Doe has significant implications for Great Lakes-area employers. Public reports indicate that the ruling effects approximately 350,000 Haitian TPS holders and more than 6,000 Syrian TPS holders, many of whom have relied on TPS-related Employment Authorization Documents (“EADs”) to work in the United States. When TPS-based employment authorization expires, affected employees may no longer rely on TPS alone as authorization to work. Accordingly, employers should not continue employing a worker after the worker’s TPS-based EAD has expired unless the employee presents another valid basis for employment authorization.
I-9 Compliance and Reverification Guidance
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and E-Verify have issued temporary, court-order-based guidance extending the validity of certain TPS-related EADs, while the lower courts address the effect of Mullin v. Doe, and providing instructions for completing Form I-9 during the interim period. As of this writing, E-Verify and USCIS guidance released on July 10, 2026, instructs employers for covered TPS-related EADs, to enter “July 17, 2026” in Section 2 of Form I-9 for Syrian nationals and “July 24, 2026” for Haitian nationals, with “as per court order” in the Section 1 expiration-date field and an explanatory note in the additional-information box. Employers should continue to monitor USCIS, E-Verify, and I-9 Central websites for the status of TPS-based work authorization and any updated Form I-9 or E-Verify instructions.
Employers should take several steps now. First, audit Form I-9 records to identify employees whose work authorization appears to be based on TPS-related documentation. The review should be document-based, not nationality-based, to avoid discrimination concerns. Second, calendar reverification dates based on the most current government guidance applicable to each TPS country and update those dates if USCIS or E-Verify issues new placeholder dates. Third, do not terminate or suspend an employee solely because of news reports or assumptions about nationality; act only when the employee’s actual work authorization has expired and the employee has not presented alternative valid authorization. Fourth, consider whether affected employees may have other lawful work authorizations based on a different status, pending application, or new EAD.
Bottom Line
Given the rapidly changing environment and the remaining litigation surrounding TPS designations, employers are advised to consult with legal counsel before taking adverse action affecting their current employees.
This article, slightly modified to note recent updates, was featured online in the Wisconsin Employment Law Letter and published by BLR®—Business & Legal Resources. Reproduced here with the permission of BLR®—Business & Legal Resources.
