The Supreme Court lent its support to Trump to end temporary protection for illegal immigrants.

The Supreme Court of the United States was inclined to support the immigration policy promoted by President Donald Trump to end temporary protections against deportation, in a key case that could redefine the reach of the executive branch and the role of federal courts in immigration matters.

During oral arguments made on Wednesday, the court's conservative majority suggested that courts may not have the authority to review decisions related to Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a program that currently allows more than one million immigrants to live and work legally in the United States. The discussion revolved around a provision included by Congress that states that the Executive's “determinations” on the TPS are not subject

to judicial review.

The president of the court, John Roberts, and Judge Samuel Alito expressed doubts about the viability of the arguments presented by the plaintiffs, who seek to curb the Trump administration's decision to eliminate TPS for certain countries, including Haiti and Syria. Both magistrates highlighted precedents that reinforce the idea that Congress explicitly limited judicial intervention in

such decisions.

The Trump administration's position is based on the premise that migration policy is a core competence of the executive branch, which must be able to adapt to changes in the international context without constant interference from the courts. In this regard, its defenders argue that allowing comprehensive judicial reviews weakens the government's ability to act quickly in the face of geopolitical or humanitarian transformations

.

The TPS program was significantly expanded during the administration of former Democratic President Joe Biden, who extended or granted protections to citizens of 17 countries. Critics of this policy argue that the program lost its temporary nature and became a mechanism for prolonged stay without strict reviews of conditions in the countries of origin

.

In contrast, the Trump administration has promoted a stricter review of these designations. A key point in the debate was the situation in Syria, where the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in 2024 was cited as evidence of a significant change in conditions in the country. Judge Brett Kavanaugh highlighted this fact during the hearing, suggesting that current circumstances may not justify continuing TPS for Syrian

law.

Analysts close to the administration's position believe that this approach introduces political elements into a debate that should focus on the legal interpretation of the powers of the Executive. They argue that insisting on public statements distracts attention from the central point: whether the government acted in accordance with the authority granted to it

by Congress.

Another relevant aspect was the court's emphasis on procedural issues rather than on the merits of the case. This trend suggests that the final decision could be based on the courts' lack of jurisdiction to review these types of measures, which would represent a significant victory for the Trump administration

.

During the term of Democrat Biden, the expansion of TPS was celebrated by progressive sectors, but it also generated strong criticism from those who believe that it encouraged irregular migration and avoided addressing structural problems in the immigration system. In this context, Trump's policy seeks to restore the balance between humanitarian protection and law enforcement.

The court's final decision, which is expected before the end of June, could have a lasting impact on U.S. immigration policy. Beyond the specific case, the ruling will define the scope of judicial control over executive decisions in a highly sensitive and politically charged area

.

citizens.

Meanwhile, the judges of the socialist wing, such as Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, focused their interventions on Trump's past statements about immigrants and certain countries, questioning whether those expressions could indicate a discriminatory motivation in immigration policy decisions. However, government representatives argued that these comments do not constitute sufficient legal evidence to invalidate measures taken within the framework of the