Trump v Miot

Under the statutory scheme, the Secretary's authority to terminate TPS turns on whether the designated conditions "no longer exist," which requires the Secretary to assess current country conditions before revoking status—here creating a factual dispute over whether Venezuela's armed conflict and humanitarian crisis had sufficiently improved to justify termination. The arbitrary-and-capricious standard from Regents applies this statutory constraint by requiring the agency to examine the relevant data on current conditions, consider whether termination was supported by that evidence, and articulate a rational basis for determining that the prerequisites for TPS no longer obtained. The respondents argue the administration failed this review by inadequately examining whether Venezuela still faced the extraordinary armed conflict and dangerous conditions that originally triggered the designation, while the government contends the Secretary properly exercised discretion in finding those conditions had stabilized. The Court's resolution will determine whether the statutory "no longer exist" language imposes meaningful constraints on termination decisions or permits the Secretary broad discretion once a designation is made, and whether TPS holders receive any procedural opportunity to demonstrate individualized hardship before country-wide revocation takes effect.