The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration possesses the legal authority to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.

美國最高法院裁定，川普政府擁有合法權限撤銷約 35 萬名海地人與 6,000 名敘利亞人的臨時受保護身份（TPS）。

In the case of Mullin v. Doe, a 6-3 conservative majority determined that the statutory framework governing TPS insulates the Secretary of Homeland Security's termination decisions from judicial review. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, asserted that the executive branch maintains broad discretion and rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the policy was racially motivated. Conversely, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, argued in a dissent that the ruling removes essential administrative accountability and ignores evidence of racial bias in the administration's rhetoric.

在 Mullin v. Doe 案中，以 6 比 3 的保守派多數決定，TPS 的法定框架使國土安全部部長的終止決定免於司法審查。由 Samuel Alito 法官代表多數派撰寫的判決書中主張，行政部門保有廣泛的裁量權，並駁回了原告關於該政策具有種族動機的指控。相反地，Elena Kagan 法官與 Sotomayor 及 Jackson 法官在反對意見中認為，此裁決取消了必要的行政問責制，且無視了行政部門言論中種族偏見的證據。

The institutional implications of this decision extend beyond the immediate cohorts. Legal analysts suggest that the precedent established may facilitate the termination of TPS for other nations, including Venezuela, Somalia, and Ethiopia, potentially impacting 1.3 million individuals across 17 countries. Furthermore, the Court upheld the 'metering' policy, which permits officials to deny asylum seekers entry if they remain on Mexican soil, thereby restricting their ability to file claims under federal law.

此項決定的制度性影響已超出目前的受影響群體。法律分析師指出，此先例可能會促進其他國家（包括委內瑞拉、索馬利亞與衣索比亞）TPS 的終止，潛在影響 17 個國家的 130 萬人。此外，法院維持了「分流」（metering）政策，允許官員在尋庇者留在墨西哥領土時拒絕其入境，從而限制其根據聯邦法律提出申請的能力。

Stakeholder positioning reveals a stark divergence between government officials and humanitarian advocates. The Department of Homeland Security characterized the ruling as a victory for the rule of law, maintaining that TPS was intended as a temporary measure rather than a pathway to permanent residency. However, representatives from organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and Human Rights Watch contend that the decision ignores the current volatility in Haiti. They cite the collapse of public services, the dominance of armed groups in Port-au-Prince, and a Level 4 State Department travel advisory as evidence that repatriation is currently untenable.

利益相關者的立場顯示，政府官員與人道主義倡導者之間存在顯著分歧。國土安全部將此裁決形容為法治的勝利，堅持 TPS 的初衷是臨時措施而非通往永久居留權的途徑。然而，來自「國境醫生」與「人權觀察」等組織的代表主張，該決定無視了海地目前的動盪。他們引用公共服務崩潰、武裝團體在太子港的主導地位，以及國務院發布的 4 級旅遊警告，證明目前的遣返計畫是不可行的。

Socioeconomic analysis indicates that the removal of legal status will disproportionately affect the healthcare and service sectors, particularly in Florida and Ohio. Research suggests that Haitian women, often serving as the primary economic and familial pillars (poto mitan), face acute psychological stress and difficult decisions regarding U.S.-born children. Additionally, advocates note that the intersection of federal enforcement and urban gentrification in areas like Miami's Little Haiti further destabilizes these communities.

社會經濟分析指出，法律身份的取消將對醫療與服務業產生不成比例的影響，尤其是在佛羅里達州與俄亥俄州。研究顯示，海地女性通常作為經濟與家庭的支柱（poto mitan），面臨著嚴重的心理壓力以及關於美國出生子女的艱難抉擇。此外，倡導者指出，聯邦執法與城市士紳化（如邁阿密的 Little Haiti 地區）的交織，進一步地使這些社區變得不穩定。

The ruling effectively removes judicial barriers to mass deportation for TPS holders and expands executive control over border asylum processes.

此裁決有效地移除了針對 TPS 持有者大規模驅逐的司法障礙，並擴大了行政部門對邊境庇護程序的控制。