No — states have not sued as direct plaintiffs over TPS terminations. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) cases have been brought by beneficiaries and advocacy groups, while states have acted together as friends of the court. Congress created TPS in 1990 for nationals of countries with armed conflict, disaster, or extraordinary conditions, with registration and work authorization during designation, according to the Congressional Research Service in its TPS overview. Seventeen countries held TPS in January 2025 and the administration terminated 13, leaving El Salvador, Sudan, Ukraine, and Lebanon designated, according to the same Congressional Research Service source.
Table of Contents
- Who files TPS termination cases?
- How have states acted together?
- What harms do states say terminations cause?
- What limit did the Supreme Court set?
- What should affected readers do now?
Who files TPS termination cases?
Direct plaintiffs are TPS holders and advocacy groups, not states. The National TPS Alliance sued over Venezuela-Haiti terminations in February 2025, according to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse in its case record. African Communities Together sued over South Sudan in December 2025, according to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse in its case record.
That distinction matters for readers looking for a claim to join. There is no state-led multistate TPS lawsuit with a plaintiff class. State participation has taken a supporting role in cases owned by others.
How have states acted together?
States have filed multistate amicus briefs, which means friend-of-the-court filings in support of one side. Nineteen attorneys general co-led by Illinois filed a Supreme Court amicus brief March 16, 2026 opposing a stay of the order postponing Haiti TPS termination. Seventeen attorneys general led by Minnesota filed an Oct.
26, 2026 amicus brief supporting Somali TPS holders' appeal after denial of emergency relief. Both efforts show coordination across states. Neither makes the states themselves plaintiffs seeking relief.
What harms do states say terminations cause?
State coalitions point to effects inside their own borders. Those effects include family separation, workforce depletion, and economic damage, according to the Illinois Attorney General in its coalition announcement.
They also include higher health-care costs and threats to public health and safety, according to the same Illinois Attorney General source. These are state-level interests used to support keeping protections in place. They do not create individual eligibility or payment rights.
What limit did the Supreme Court set?
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court held 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe that 8 U.S.C. §1254a(b)(5)(A) bars judicial review of nonconstitutional challenges to TPS designation, termination, or extension decisions, according to the Supreme Court in its slip opinion.
That ruling sharply narrows the legal path for termination challenges. The Court also reversed lower-court orders that had blocked Haiti and Syria terminations. That step foreclosed the APA arbitrary-and-capricious theory used for Burma, Somalia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, and other terminations.
What should affected readers do now?
There is no multistate TPS settlement or claim form tied to state amicus action. A brief supporting holders does not preserve any one person's status or work authorization. Ask a lawyer whether a constitutional claim remains possible after Mullin, because ordinary administrative challenges are now barred.
- Check whether your country's TPS designation remains active.
- Keep registration, employment, and immigration paperwork current and separate.
- Get advice from a qualified immigration attorney before acting on a termination notice.
- Follow the direct holder lawsuits for orders that apply to your country, not the amicus filings.