Reposted by Jake Werner
Jake Werner
@jwdwerner.bsky.social
1.7K followers 467 following 461 posts
Historian, director for East Asia @quincyinst.bsky.social, cofounder Justice Is Global. Previously @gdp-center.bsky.social, University of Chicago. Writing on US–China relations and global capitalism.
![The Court assumes for the sake of argument that heightened scrutiny applies and that it must determine whether a “discriminatory purpose [was] a motivating factor in the decision” to terminate Haiti’s TPS
designation, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development
Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 265–266. Because application of that standard
calls for consideration of the context in which a challenged statement
was made, id., at 267–268, the immigration context is an important
factor.
None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary
was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that
could rest on race-neutral justifications. Viewing all the relevant evidence, Miot respondents are unlikely to prove that race was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation, and it
follows that they are not entitled to interim relief on their equal protection claim. Pp. 20–24](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2vtbmhmrwzbqcfv4we4uxzzt/bafkreif6utfi3d52wb76c2oyse67yses7xjvecvcu7kucd3h2fhl72ud4y)
![MULLIN v. DOE
Syllabus
that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation violated the constitutional right to equal protection because it was motivated by race. The
District Court granted interim relief, and a divided D. C. Circuit panel
declined to issue a stay. The Government sought a stay and a writ of
certiorari before judgment in both cases. This Court granted review,
consolidated the cases, and deferred ruling on the stay applications.
Held:
1. The TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims.
Pp. 12–18.
(a) Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) provides that “[t]here is no judicial review
of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation,
of a foreign state.” The term “determination” may mean either an individual decision or the process leading to a decision. Under either
understanding, §1254a(b)(5)(A) bars all of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. Further, the phrase “with respect to” “generally has a
broadening effect, ensuring that the scope of a provision covers not
only its subject but also matters relating to that subject.” Patel v. Garland, 596 U. S. 328, 339 (internal quotation marks omitted). Pp. 12–
13.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2vtbmhmrwzbqcfv4we4uxzzt/bafkreifragvqrfnsseonrcnsl6nx32n2tbgdi7a4ugnuyh2h4xggbga3si)
