Reposted by Ariel G Ruiz Soto
Interested in hands-on experience in migration policy research or communications?
Our Spring 2027 internship cycle runs January-April, with opportunities to work remotely or in DC.
📢 Apply by Oct. 15
Ariel G Ruiz Soto
@ruizags.bsky.social
161 followers 89 following 54 posts
Senior Policy Analyst at Migration Policy Institute, bringing research-based solutions at the forefront of migration policy in the US and Latin America
![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)
