Beltway Buzz, June 26, 2026

SCOTUS: President May Terminate TPS for Haitians, Syrians. On June 25, 2026, in a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected claims that the administration had unlawfully terminated the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Syria and Haiti. The administration defended its termination of TPS for Syria (made in September 2025) and Haiti (made in November 2025) by relying on federal law, which states, “There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.”

Challengers to the termination of the TPS designations claimed that the statute’s language barring review did not apply to the process leading up to the actual decision. The Court found this argument to be “inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statutory text” and explained, “If the final agency action is unreviewable, then so too are subsidiary determinations.” The Court further rejected claims that the termination of TPS for Haiti was grounded in racial animus because public statements made by President Trump and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem were not “overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.” Ultimately, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief that pauses the terminations of the two TPS programs while the underlying litigation proceeds. Jack R. Haverkate has additional details.

In April 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill by a vote of 224–204 that would extend TPS for Haiti for three years. The bill is unlikely to gain traction in the U.S. Senate.

Final Duration-of-Status Rule on the Way. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has completed its review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) proposed rule that would establish a four-year maximum period of stay for students on F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrant visas. This means that ICE may publish the final rule at any moment.

FLSA Joint Employer Comments Take Procedural Step Forward. On June 22, 2026, the public comment docket closed on the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division’s proposal on “Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.” The proposal largely tracks the DOL’s 2020 joint-employer rule, which was mostly struck down by a federal court, by setting forth a four-factor test for determining joint-employer status. That test examines whether the alleged employer: (1) “hires or fires the employee”; (2) “supervises and controls the employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree”; (3) “determines the employee’s rate and method of payment”; and (4) “maintains the employee’s employment records.” At this stage in the rulemaking process, the DOL will review the public’s comments on the proposal and make any necessary changes to the proposal. A final rule will likely be issued in late 2026 or early 2027.

Coming Soon … the Regulatory Agenda? Speaking of rulemaking, the administration’s last Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions was published on September 4, 2025. The Buzz previously noted how this lack of rulemaking transparency creates uncertainty for the employer community. Now that we are at the time of year when the Spring Regulatory Agenda is often released, the Buzz is hopeful that it will soon be issued. This will give employers—and all stakeholders—much-needed clarity with regard to the administration’s rulemaking plans for the months ahead.

House Committee Advances AI Information Collection Bill. On June 25, 2026, the House Committee on Education and Workforce voted to approve the AI Workforce Assessment and Research Enhancement (AWARE) Act (H.R. 9381). The bill would require the Bureau of Labor Statistics to collect and compile data on the usage of AI in the workplace. The bill now heads to the House floor.

Lights, Camera, Action … in the Court? The Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced two bills that would allow federal court proceedings to be televised:

• The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2025 (S. 1133) would allow federal district and appellate court judges (including those on the Supreme Court) “to permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising” of court proceedings. Pursuant to the bill, no media coverage of jurors shall be permitted if the “judge determines the action would constitute a violation of the due process rights of any party,” nor is such coverage of jurors allowed.
• The Cameras in the Courtroom Act (S. 1146/H.R. 2361) applies specifically to the Supreme Court but goes further by mandating “television coverage of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more of the parties before the Court.”

The Judicial Conference of the United States opposes the bills, arguing that “camera coverage can do irreparable harm to a citizen’s right to a fair and impartial trial.” The conference also notes that media coverage of federal court proceedings raises privacy and safety concerns for participants, including federal judges. Finally, the conference warns against the potential creation of “deepfake” judicial proceedings, as well as the cost of retrofitting courtrooms.

Next week’s edition of the Buzz will be published on Thursday, July 2, 2026.