Supreme Court Deals Setback to Venezuelans' TPS: Case Sent Back for Re-evaluation

The United States Supreme Court has introduced a new twist in the legal battle over Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans by overturning a lower court's decision that had favored TPS recipients. The case has been sent back for reconsideration under a precedent that limits judicial review of government decisions regarding this immigration program.

This ruling coincided with the commencement of the Supreme Court's new session.

According to Univision, the justices accepted the government's request to nullify the appealed decision, and the case has been returned to the lower court for reevaluation in light of Mullin v. Doe.

The Supreme Court's official record for the case, labeled as 26-48, Mullin v. National TPS Alliance, documented this development with the procedural formula: petition granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in view of Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S. 324 (2026).

The official order list from October 5 also includes actions from the first day of the new judicial term.

While significant, the decision does not constitute a new substantive ruling that independently terminates Venezuelan TPS.

Impact of the Supreme Court's Procedure

Technically, the Court employed the "grant, vacate and remand" procedure: it agreed to review the case, nullified the previous judgment, and ordered the lower court to reassess it under the new legal framework.

This framework emerges from Mullin v. Doe, a decision issued by the Supreme Court on June 25, 2026. In that case, concerning TPS cancellations for Syria and Haiti, the majority concluded that TPS law prevents courts from reviewing certain decisions made by the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding the termination of a country's designation.

The legal provision examined stipulates that there is no judicial review of a "determination" by the secretary concerning the designation, extension, or termination of TPS.

Consequences for Venezuelan TPS Holders

This criterion significantly reduces the scope for federal courts to block program cancellations via lawsuits based on non-constitutional claims.

The Supreme Court's decision came just three days after the expiration of the last group of roughly 5,000 Venezuelans who retained TPS-related documentation until that date.

This group consisted of individuals who had received certain immigration documents before February 5, 2025, with an expiration date of October 2, 2026. During the prolonged legal battle, these authorizations were temporarily protected.

The estimate of around 5,000 individuals is approximate, not definitive. Telemundo reported that experts calculated this was roughly the number of Venezuelans who still held work permits linked to TPS until that date.

For those relying solely on TPS to legally live and work in the U.S., the expiration could mean the loss of both deportation protection and employment authorization.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's order does not imply that all work authorization cards were automatically canceled on October 5.

Advisory for Affected Individuals

The status of each permit depends on the immigration category under which it was issued, its validity date, and whether the holder has another independent legal basis to work or remain in the country.

Thus, anyone whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) still shows an apparently valid date should not assume that the card alone continues to authorize work. The validity of the document must be assessed alongside the immigration status that originally granted the permit.

This complexity stems from January 2025, when the previous government announced a TPS extension for Venezuela until October 2, 2026. Subsequently, the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rescinded that decision and moved forward with terminating Venezuelan designations.

An official USCIS and DHS document detailed that the revocation affected the 2025 extension, the unification of the 2021 and 2023 designation processes, and certain automatic work permit extensions.

The legal battle allowed the small group with documentation expiring on October 2, 2026, to temporarily retain their rights, even after the Supreme Court previously permitted the government to proceed with canceling TPS for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans.

In June, the Supreme Court had already set important limitations on federal judges' ability to block TPS cancellations in cases related to Haiti and Syria in Mullin v. Doe.

Significance for Florida's Venezuelan Community

This precedent is now crucial for the Venezuelan litigation: the lower court must reevaluate the case, bearing in mind that the Supreme Court finds TPS legislation explicitly limits judicial review of certain DHS decisions.

For South Florida, where a substantial Venezuelan community resides in cities and areas like Doral, Weston, and Kendall, this change has immediate practical implications for families, workers, and employers who must determine if the affected individuals' work permits are still valid through means other than TPS.

Experts advise individually reviewing the EAD, I-797, and I-94 forms and any pending immigration procedures, as well as consulting an immigration attorney before continuing to use documentation whose validity might solely depend on TPS.

The loss of TPS does not necessarily mean that all affected individuals can be immediately deported: some Venezuelans have asylum applications, family petitions, or other open procedures providing them with a different immigration basis. However, those without other protection might face detention and deportation processes.

This case adds to an especially intense immigration agenda at the Supreme Court. The new judicial term also includes disputes over deportations to third countries and immigration detention without automatic access to bail, issues that could directly impact thousands of immigrants, including Cubans.

Thus, the litigation over Venezuelan TPS is not over: it now returns to the lower court. But it does so under a Supreme Court precedent that significantly narrows the scope of judicial challenges to DHS decisions regarding the termination of these protections.