We will hear argument first this morning in case 25, 1083, Mullen v. Doe, and the consolidated case.

General Sauer.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, respondents here seek judicial review of the Secretary's

decisions to terminate temporary protected status for Syria and Haiti.

Yet, Section 1254A B5A provides that there is no judiciary view of any

determination of the Secretary with respect to the designation or termination or extension of

a designation of a foreign state for temporary protected status. That provision means what it says.

Determination is hardly a rarely used word that broadly includes the Secretary's decisions, conclusions, or opinions. Both any and with respect to

have an expansive meeting and a broadening effect. The provision thus bars judicial review of both

the Secretary's ultimate decision whether to designate, extend, or terminate, and of each antecedent step along the way to that determination.

Respondent's attempts to carve out exceptions to the review bar would eviscerate it because virtually any substantive challenge could be recast as a procedural claim, as their own claims demonstrate.

Moreover, their claims plainly cannot be raised without referring to or relying on the termination decisions,

and they challenge the very kind of foreign policy-laden judgments that are traditionally entrusted to the political branches.

Even if their claims are not barred, they are meritless.

The statute does not micromanage the degree of consultation with other agencies.

Paragraph B3 requires the Secretary to consider the national interest in reviewing designations made under B1C

because it requires her to determine whether the foreign state continues to meet the national interest in reviewing designations made under B1C, because it requires

her to determine whether the foreign state continues to meet the conditions for designation under

paragraph 1.

Far from demonstrating pretext, the fact that the Secretary exercised her discretion consistently

is a virtue, not a vice, and the Mio Respondent's constitutional claim is meritless under any standard of review.

I welcome the Court's questions.

...