TPS Work Permits for Seven Countries Expire July 17. What Mullin v. Doe Actually Changed, and What It Didn't.

What the Supreme Court actually decided on June 25

The case is Mullin v. Doe, decided 6–3 on June 25, 2026. The core holding: federal courts have no jurisdiction to review the executive branch's decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status for a country. That one sentence restructured the legal landscape for roughly 600,000 TPS holders in the United States.

The case originated from the Trump administration's decisions to terminate TPS for Haiti and Syria — decisions that had been blocked by lower courts for years through successive injunctions. The Ninth Circuit and other courts had been using the Administrative Procedure Act, specifically the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of judicial review, to pause those terminations. The Supreme Court majority, written by Justice Alito, held that TPS termination decisions are committed to agency discretion by law, which removes them from APA review entirely. Courts cannot second-guess whether the executive got the facts right, applied the right standards, or reached a reasonable conclusion. The decision is unreviewable.

A secondary issue in the case was a constitutional challenge. Haitian TPS holders argued that Haiti's TPS termination was motivated by racial animus. The Court rejected that claim, finding that the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient evidence that racial discrimination was a motivating factor. That pathway is now foreclosed too.

Haiti and Syria: two TPS programs that ended July 1

Both Haiti and Syria lost their TPS designations effective July 1, 2026. The Haiti program had protected roughly 350,000 people; the Syria program covered approximately 6,000. These numbers reflect original TPS registrations — the number of active TPS holders at the time of termination would be lower, since some people had left the country, adjusted to other statuses, or failed to re-register in time.

For Haitian TPS holders, USCIS provided a short-term work authorization extension through July 24, 2026. For Syrian holders, EADs expired July 1 with the TPS designation itself, with USCIS issuing limited I-9 documentation guidance. These are not durable solutions. They are brief administrative bridges that give affected individuals a few days to make arrangements and give employers time to update I-9 records before reverification is required.

The five other countries: what expires July 17 and why it matters

The ruling's structural impact extends far beyond Haiti and Syria. The Court's holding eliminates the main legal theory that had been used to block TPS terminations for five other countries: Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. Those programs had been kept in place partly because courts were willing to issue injunctions based on the APA arbitrary-and-capricious theory. With that theory gone, the government can now move to terminate those programs through normal administrative channels without facing the same injunction risk.

USCIS followed the Mullin decision by extending EADs for TPS holders in all five of those countries through July 17, 2026 — six days from today. This was not a reinstatement of TPS. It was a temporary administrative bridge to allow I-9 verification to proceed in an orderly way while USCIS worked through the next steps. If you are a TPS holder from Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, or Yemen and your EAD shows a validity date of July 17, 2026 or earlier, you need to understand what happens next before your employer updates your I-9 record.

What July 17 actually means for your work authorization

An EAD that expires July 17 without a valid new status or new authorization document means the holder is no longer authorized to work in the United States as of that date. Employers are required to reverify employment authorization when existing documents expire. Under I-9 rules, an employer who knows an employee's work authorization has expired cannot continue employing that person without updated documentation.

The critical distinction: losing TPS does not mean someone is required to leave the United States immediately, and it does not automatically trigger removal proceedings. It means one basis for lawful status has ended. Whether removal proceedings follow depends on multiple factors — whether the person has any other pending immigration benefit, any other basis for remaining in lawful status, or any active application that provides some form of procedural protection. The immigration status question and the work authorization question are related but move on distinct tracks.

For employers, the I-9 reverification obligation is clear and not discretionary. For employees, the relevant question in the coming days is not just whether your employer can keep you on payroll — it is what your current immigration status actually is and whether any pending or approvable relief changes the analysis. Answering that correctly requires knowing your specific situation, which a news article cannot do.

What Mullin means for the remaining TPS programs

Beyond the seven countries directly in the immediate crosshairs, Mullin creates a structural shift for every remaining TPS program. The legal theory that had protected designations for Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, and others relied on the APA arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review. That standard no longer applies to TPS termination decisions. The government can now move to terminate any of those programs and face dramatically reduced judicial review risk.

This does not mean terminations are automatic or imminent for those remaining programs. The administrative process for terminating a TPS designation — DHS must publish notice, allow public comment, and establish a departure date — still applies. Political considerations and international relationships still factor in. What changed is that the judicial backstop, which had blocked terminations for years through successive injunctions, is now gone. For administrators who want to end a TPS program, the legal path is clearer than it has been in a decade.

For TPS holders from Honduras and Nicaragua, who together number roughly 100,000 people, the Mullin decision should be read as a serious signal. The legal mechanism that had been the backstop for those programs no longer exists. Evaluating alternatives now, before a termination notice arrives, is not pessimistic — it is the practical thing to do.

Pending green cards and what they mean in this context

Some TPS holders have pending I-485 adjustment of status applications or approved I-140 petitions with priority dates moving through the queue. A TPS termination does not automatically invalidate a pending I-485. If someone has a pending I-485 based on a family or employment petition that has not yet been adjudicated, the I-485 generally remains pending subject to normal USCIS adjudication considerations.

The more complicated issue is unlawful presence accumulation. TPS grants a form of lawful status while it is active. After TPS ends, a person who remains in the United States without another basis for status begins accumulating unlawful presence — with exceptions for pending applications and certain other procedural protections. The interaction between unlawful presence accumulation, a pending I-485, and the statutory bars to adjustment of status is one of the most fact-specific areas of immigration law. The calculation differs depending on how the person originally entered, when and how TPS was obtained, what category the pending petition falls into, and whether a priority date is current. This is not something that can be evaluated correctly from general information. It requires a consultation with an attorney who can review the actual documents.

What options actually exist — and what people are getting wrong

The most persistent misreading of Mullin right now is that people are treating it as the end of all options. It is not. The decision closed one specific door — the APA-based challenge to a TPS termination decision in federal court. It did not close all pathways to relief or lawful status.

Asylum remains available for people who have not previously filed a claim and who meet the refugee definition. Withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection remain available as defenses in removal proceedings. Some TPS holders may have pending or approvable family-based petitions, employer-sponsored I-140s with retained priority dates, or other adjustment pathways. Cancellation of removal — available to people with ten or more years of continuous presence and qualifying U.S. citizen or permanent resident family members — is another avenue. U visas and T visas apply in specific circumstances involving crime victims or trafficking survivors.

What Mullin foreclosed is the specific strategy of challenging the TPS termination decision itself in federal court on APA grounds. That approach, which succeeded in the Ninth Circuit and other courts for years, is now gone. But the underlying pathways to lawful status were not closed by this ruling. The question for each person is which of those pathways applies to their particular facts.

If your TPS EAD expires July 17 or July 24, the relevant question is not only whether your employer can continue to employ you, but what your current immigration status is, whether you have any other pending application, and what realistic paths forward exist for your situation. That analysis depends on your country of birth, entry history, family circumstances, and employment history. This article is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed immigration attorney before making any decisions about your status, employment, travel, or departure from the United States.