The Supreme Court will weigh arguments Wednesday over the Trump administration’s push to end legal protections for Haitians and Syrians as migrants fleeing war and natural disaster.

Haitians and Syrians were among those from 17 countries with Temporary Protected Status, which allows migrants already in the U.S. to stay with work permits in 18-month increments, so long as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security deems their country of origin unsafe for return.

Since President Donald Trump ’s second term began, Homeland Security has ended the protections for 13 countries, exposing their migrants to potential deportation.

The case focuses on whether the administration properly weighed conditions in Haiti and Syria when it ended TPS and if it prejudiced non-white immigrants.

Here’s the latest:

Barrett asks about the racial dynamic

Justice Amy Coney Barrett jumps in with a question about constitutional claims the migrants have made, which include the argument that race played a role in the decision to end the protections.

She’s another key member of the conservative majority, and one with a personal connection to Haiti. Two of her seven children were adopted from the country.

The Trump administration has denied racial animus played a role in the decision, and Sauer argued the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are “not a close call.”

Judges question administration lawyer

The three liberal-leaning justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, are grilling Sauer on his main argument.

Their focus: Even if judges can’t question the decision to terminate legal protections, why can’t they weigh arguments about whether Homeland Security followed the steps Congress laid out in the law?

Kagan losing voice & making jokes

Justice Elena Kagan is struggling with some voice issues.

She was questioning Sauer, stopped to cough, and then apologized.

Still struggling as she questioned Sauer further, she then joked that “the likelihood of me asking a follow-up is very diminished.”

That sparked some laughter in the court.

Sauer defends Kristi Noem’s decision-making

Sauer mentioned in his opening statement that when the secretary issued her TPS decisions the fact that her decisions were consistent was a “virtue and not a vice.”

That seemed to be in reference to criticism by immigration advocates that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem wasn’t doing a substantive consultation with the State Department when it comes to assessing country conditions and deciding whether it was safe enough for them to return home.

Roberts questions link to Trump’s original travel ban

Chief Justice John Roberts questions whether Sauer is seeking a “significant expansion” of the court’s ruling in Trump v. Hawaii, the case where the court upheld Trump’s travel ban for Muslim-majority countries during his first term.

Roberts holds a key vote on the court as both the chief and a member of the conservative majority who has voted against the administration in some cases, like the ruling that stuck down Trump’s tariffs.

And they’re off!

Arguments have started in the TPS case.

The justices first released a number of opinions before launching into oral arguments in this key case.

First up is the federal government. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that the law doesn’t allow courts to block or delay Homeland Security decisions, or question any of the steps along the way.

Court voids majority Black congressional district in Louisiana

The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s second majority Black congressional district in a decision that could open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats and affect the balance of power in Congress.

The court’s conservative majority found that the district, represented by Democrat Cleo Fields, relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the district as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge areas.

The decision weakens a landmark voting rights law’s protections against discrimination in redistricting. It’s unclear how much is left of the provision, known as Section 2, the main way to challenge racially discriminatory election practices.

But first, some opinions!

The court is releasing several opinions on previous cases before getting into the TPS-related arguments.

In the first opinion, The court sided with a faith-based pregnancy center that raised First Amendment concerns about an investigation into whether it misled people to discourage abortions.

The high court’s unanimous ruling is a procedural victory for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which is challenging a New Jersey probe of its practices.

The conservative-majority court has given abortion opponents high-profile wins in recent years, most notably the watershed case that overturned the nationwide right to abortion in 2022. First Choice, though, had also drawn support from the American Civil Liberties Union, which supports abortion rights but backed the group’s First Amendment concerns.

The Supreme Court’s decision lets First Choice sue over the subpoena in federal court.

TPS holders are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court

Dozens of immigrants who have been protected from deportation under a temporary status are beginning to gather in front of the Supreme Court to follow the arguments on the Trump administration’s attempt to end these protections for Haitians and Syrians.

The Supreme Court will weigh arguments at 10 a.m. The case has wider implications for more than 1.3 million people from 17 countries who have been living and working in the U.S., protected under TPS.

Immigrants and advocates outside the Supreme Court are demanding “equal justice under the law.”

TPS holders plan to offer their testimony. There are performances by musicians from TPS countries and by Los Jornaleros del Norte, a band from Los Angeles made up of current and former day laborers.

Who’s at the podium

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government’s top Supreme Court attorney, will argue the case for the Trump administration.

Two lawyers will argue on the other side, since the court is considering the future of legal protections for people from two countries. Ahilan Arulanantham, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, will argue the Syrian case and attorney Geoffrey Pipoly will represent people from Haiti.

The new secretary gets the blame

This lawsuit originally was directed at Kristi Noem, who was Trump’s first Homeland Security secretary.

But when she was fired, and Markwayne Mullin was sworn in as the new DHS secretary, he also got the honor of being the person named in all the lawsuits.

Lawsuits tend to follow the head of the agency or department so when those people change, the new secretary or agency head takes over the role of being named in all the lawsuits, even if they happened before he or she took office.

This even happens when administrations change. For example, advocates sued the first Trump administration over its efforts to terminate TPS, specifically naming his DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

But by the time the case concluded six years later, it was Biden’s DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas who was named in the suit.

How temporary is temporary?

One of the key complaints by conservatives about TPS is that something that is supposed to be temporary essentially becomes permanent.

Republicans often point to TPS designations that are extended repeatedly, even after the reason for the original designation has long passed.

The TPS designation for El Salvador, for example, was first designated in 2001 following devastating earthquakes in the country.

But immigration advocates say there’s no time limit on TPS use, and the administration is trying to send people back to countries still in turmoil.

Conditions in Syria

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, also known as the UN Refugee Agency, says that Syria’s operational contexts reflect a dual dynamic of large-scale returns and persistent humanitarian needs.