Mullin v. Doe · ¶69

Moving beyond the text and precedent, respondents contend that our interpretation of the judicial-review bar could protect many shocking abuses of TPS. For example, a rogue Secretary in one fell swoop could issue a 50-year TPS designation, contrary to the 18-month statutory cap. Or a Secretary could terminate a TPS designation based on a coin- flip. The Government responds to each of respondents’ far- fetched hypotheticals and concludes that some but not all could in fact be redressed by the courts. See Reply Brief 9– 10. But whether or not that assessment is correct, the fact remains that if a Secretary engaged in the sort of conduct that respondents imagine, Congress would have ample means to stop that abuse, including, for example, through the annual appropriations process. “Sometimes Congress decides that the political process is the proper forum for remedying improper conduct.”…

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