Lawfare Daily: The TPS Cases at the Supreme Court, with Geoffrey Pipoly and Andrew Tauber

The Lawfare Podcast

The Lawfare Institute

International Law, Government, Military, Rule Of Law, International Relations, History, News, Terrorism, Politics, Law, Intelligence, National Security, Foreign Policy, Constitutional Law, Diplomacy, Current Events

4.7 • 6.4K Ratings

🗓️ 24 April 2026

⏱️ 53 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Geoffrey Pipoly and Andrew Tauber, partners at the Bryan Cave law firm, speak with Senior Editor Roger Parloff about their case, known at the Supreme Court level as Trump v. Miot. In it, they have been fighting to preserve Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 350,000 Haitian immigrants. The Court is hearing the case on April 29, along with Mullin v. Dahlia Doe, which concerns the government’s attempt to terminate TPS status for about 7,000 Syrians. Pipoly and Tauber explain what the TPS program is and why they contend that the government’s attempt to terminate it for Haitians violates the TPS statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the equal protection component of the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution.

To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	The periodic review, as Andy said, is a review of conditions on the ground in the foreign state.
0:07.0	Now obviously there's some wiggle room and discretion baked into how the agency weighs factor X versus factor Y.
0:15.0	And we agree that those are not reviewable by courts.
0:19.0	But what you can't do is come in and say, I want to terminate
0:22.7	TPS, fit the facts to that conclusion. Get me there. It's the Lawfare podcast. I'm Roger
0:29.7	Parloff, senior editor at Lawfare, and I'm with Jeffrey Pipoli and Andrew Taubber, attorneys for
0:36.4	Haitian plaintiffs trying to keep their temporary protected
0:39.7	status in the United States.
0:42.4	So we have both the presumption that they meant to adopt the language as it had been
0:47.4	interpreted in Bowen, and then the further presumption that they confirmed that understanding
0:51.3	by failing to amend it afterwards.
0:53.0	So we have both textual support as well
0:55.2	as historic support for our reading of what determination means. It's a much, much more limited
1:00.7	reading than the government has. Today we're talking about the Mio case, one of two consolidated
1:07.9	TPS cases being argued before the Supreme Court on April 29th.
1:13.7	So you are both from the firm of Brian Cave, and Jeff will be arguing before the Supreme Court
1:23.2	in the case of Mio versus Trump. At the Supreme Court level they call it Trump versus Mio.
1:31.5	And that's about TPS status for essentially 350,000 Haitians.
1:37.5	And that's been consolidated with another case called at the Supreme Court Mullen versus Dahlia Doe, which is about TPS for Syrians.
1:47.6	There's about 7,000 Syrians impacted by that.
1:52.0	But before getting to Haiti, which is who you all represent the Haitians, first, can one of you
2:00.5	just explain to the listeners what TPS is, temporary
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Lawfare Institute, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The Lawfare Institute and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.