Mullin v. Doe · ¶138

The majority’s opposing argument is at odds with the Ar lington Heights standard. On the majority’s view, there is a more plausible “race-neutral explanation[]” of the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation: “the present administration’s general stance on immigration and its obvious antipathy toward past administrations’ TPS policies.” Ante, at 22; see ante, at 2. But the Arlington Heights test is not in the nature of an “either/or” inquiry. It does not ask a court to identify which is the single cause, or even the primary cause, of an official action. To the contrary, that test recognizes a “both/and” world: that causes are usually multiple (and often intertwined). I have no doubt that, as the majority says, the current administration is generally hostile toward immigration and prior TPS policies. I also have no doubt, again with the majority, that those views may be held for reasons…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.