Docket: Secretary, Homeland Security v. Doe
Search - Mullin v. Doe - Supreme Court of the United States 25A953
Secretary v. Doe - U.S. Application to stay order below
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of this Court and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.
1651, the Solicitor General—on behalf of applicants Kristi Noem, et al.—respectfully
files this application to stay the order postponing agency action issued by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. [And for the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.]
...both times, the Court’s orders reflected that the government established
irreparable harm and that the balance of the equities weighed in its favor. See Nken
v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)
Related proceedings:
United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.):
Doe v. Noem, No. 25-cv-8686 (Nov. 19, 2025) (order granting motion to postpone
agency action)
United States Court of Appeals (2d Cir.):
Doe v. Noem, No. 25-2995 (Feb. 17, 2026) (order denying motion for stay pending appeal)
In essence the U.S. asserts that unexplained orders by two other courts establishes the law of the case allowing the termination of Temporary Protected Status enjoyed by refugees from Syria.
The Solicitor General argues that
"given the lower courts’ persistent disregard for this Court’s stay orders, this Court should also grant certiorari
before judgment. Otherwise, lower courts will continue to impermissibly bypass an
unambiguous judicial-review bar and displace the Secretary’s judgment on matters
committed to her unreviewable discretion by law; continue to twist APA review to
substitute their own judgment for the Secretary’s; and continue to impede the termination of temporary protection that the Secretary has deemed contrary to the national interest, tying those decisions up in protracted litigation with no end in sight. "
The U.S. Supreme Court has in fact stayed the orders below and granted cert before judgment.
Brief amicus for 150 former U.S. and State court judges
The judges, appearing as amicus curiae, argue:
I. Unexplained interim orders do not bind courts in different cases. ................... 6
II. The Government overstates the significance of the NTPSA stay orders. ........ 9
III. The decision to deny a stay was a reasonable application of this Court’s
precedents.......................................................................................................... 11
IV. The court of appeals should address the Government’s merits
arguments in the first instance.
Syria
is a country in humanitarian crisis. In recognition of a brutal civil war that
began in 2011, the United States has repeatedly granted Syrian nationals a form
of statutory and humanitarian protection called Temporary Protected Status
(“TPS”), which protects certain individuals from removal to countries
designated unsafe on account of dire country conditions like armed conflict,
natural disaster, or other extraordinary circumstances. TPS provides eligible
beneficiaries with the right to live and work legally in the United States
during a period when it is unsafe for them to return to their countries of
origin. Over 6,100 Syrian nationals currently have TPS and, as a result, find
refuge in the United States; and over 800 Syrian nationals have pending applications
hoping for that same protection. 2. Plaintiffs are seven Syrian nationals with
TPS or pending applications for TPS, who have lived in the United States for
years and have deep ties to this country and their communities. They bring this
class action to challenge Defendants’ remarkable and unlawful decision to
terminate Syria’s TPS designation, effective November 21, 2025.
350,000 Haitians are protected by TPS. In a powerful amicus brief authored principally by lawyers from the multi-national law firm Bryan Cave, argue that the actions against Syrian refugees endangers similarly situated persons who fled Haiti.
The amici judges continue their argument:
Defendants’ actions put Plaintiffs with existing TPS at imminent risk
of losing the critical humanitarian protection that TPS provides and rob
Plaintiffs with pending applications of the opportunity to have their
applications adjudicated. Should TPS for Syria be terminated, all Plaintiffs
will face impossible choices: to uproot their lives yet again in search of a
pathway to safety in a third country; to remain in the United States without
lawful immigration status, at risk of imminent immigration detention and
removal; or to relocate—some for the first time—to Syria, a country plagued by
violent conflict, including air strikes, civil unrest, humanitarian crisis, and
volatile country conditions.
Noem v. Doe: The government filed an application
on February 26 requesting the Supreme Court stay pending appeal of a
preliminary injunction issued by a district court preliminarily enjoining
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem from terminating temporary
protected status designation for Syria. The government asked the Court to
construe the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment
and grant the petition. On March 16, the Court consolidated the case with a
challenge to the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary
Protected Status designations for Haiti and granted certiorari before judgment
of the consolidated cases while deferring action on the government’s request
for a stay.
The current status is:
| Mar 16 2026 | Consideration of the application for stay (25A952) presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is deferred. Consideration of the application for stay (25A999) presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is also deferred. The applications are also treated as petitions for a writ of certiorari before judgment (25-1083, 25-1084), and the petitions are GRANTED. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The cases will be heard during the second week of the April 2026 argument session. Petitioners’ brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Monday March 30, 2026. Respondents’ briefs on the merits and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 13, 2026. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before Monday, April 20, 2026. |
