Former Sen. Sherrod Brown took to X on Thursday to denounce the Supreme Court after it cleared the way for the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitian migrants, a ruling that Brown called "wrong" and "a devastating blow to thousands of families." The Ohio Democrat, now running again for the U.S. Senate seat he lost in 2024, framed the 6-3 decision as an attack on working communities. But his record on immigration enforcement, his donor base, and the real-world costs that Springfield, Ohio, residents have borne tell a different story than the one Brown is selling.

The ruling and what it means

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal law bars judicial review of the administration's decision to terminate TPS for at least 450,000 Haitian migrants who received protections under President Biden. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that the TPS statute "allows no judicial review of any determination with respect to the termination of a TPS designation," as the Washington Examiner reported.

The decision split along ideological lines. Alito's majority opinion also rejected claims of racial animus in the Haiti TPS termination, noting that both sides identified race-neutral explanations for the administration's actions.

The practical consequences are significant. Haitian migrants who lose TPS will forfeit work permits, driver's licenses, access to government aid programs, and legal residency. Employers who continue to hire workers who lose authorization could face fines. The ruling also has broader implications, it will directly affect similar litigation over TPS for immigrants from Venezuela, South Sudan, and other countries.

Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan put it plainly: "The Court rightly held that Congress meant what it said: Temporary Protected Status is temporary."

Brown's response, and what he left out

Brown wasted no time framing himself as a champion of Ohio's working families. In his post on X, he wrote:

"TODAY'S RULING IS WRONG and a devastating blow to thousands of families who have built their lives here, working, paying taxes, and contributing to Ohio's communities."

He went on to claim alignment with Gov. Mike DeWine and "the majority of Ohioans," arguing that the Haitian community "plays a key role in helping our local economies thrive." He added that with the cost of gas, groceries, and utilities continuing to soar, the focus should be on "increasing economic opportunity for all Ohioans, not setting working families back further."

It's a polished message. But Brown's invocation of rising costs leaves out a critical piece of the puzzle: what the arrival of thousands of Haitians actually did to Springfield, Ohio, the community at the center of this debate.

Springfield's per capita income and median household income were already below the state average. Its poverty rate ran higher than Ohio's overall rate. Housing costs rose sharply after 2020 amid surging demand and limited inventory, demand driven in part by the influx of migrants. TPS allowed up to 15,000 Haitians in Springfield to sign up for programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services approved 5,279 applications for aid from Haitians.

Brown talks about "economic opportunity for all Ohioans." The residents of Springfield might reasonably ask which Ohioans he means, the ones already struggling with below-average incomes, or the new arrivals drawing from the same pool of public benefits and housing stock.

A pattern on enforcement

Brown's Thursday post did not arrive in a vacuum. It fits a pattern of opposition to immigration enforcement that stretches across his career and into his current campaign.

In January, Brown called on DeWine, Sen. Jon Husted, and Sen. Bernie Moreno, all Republicans, to "put Ohio communities first and join my call to extend TPS for the Haitian community." He said Haitian Americans "don't have a safe place to return to in Haiti and our communities across Ohio depend on them to help our local economy thrive."

That same month, Signal Ohio reporter Andrew Tobias reported that Brown went further, saying ICE "needs to be 'radically redone'" and declaring that "bringing ICE in means that these communities are less safe." He also called for DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to be fired.

This is not a man wrestling with a difficult policy trade-off. This is a candidate who wants to dismantle the enforcement apparatus, fire the people running it, and keep a temporary immigration program running indefinitely, while telling voters he's looking out for them.

Brown's broader record reinforces the point. He voted to terminate Trump's national emergency declaration for border wall construction. He voted to convict Trump in both impeachment trials. His alignment with the progressive wing on immigration is not new. What's new is his attempt to dress it up as Midwestern economic populism while running in a state that went decisively for Trump.

The DeWine factor

Brown's attempt to shelter behind Gov. DeWine deserves scrutiny. DeWine did appear on CBS's Face the Nation and said revoking TPS status would be "wrong." He argued that Haitians in Springfield filled jobs employers said could not otherwise be filled and that ending TPS would leave those employers unable to hire them.

DeWine's position reflects a real employer-side concern. Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, raised a similar worry, warning that ending TPS for Haitians could cause a healthcare crisis, since roughly one-third of 350,000-plus Haitian TPS holders work in the U.S. healthcare system. "Immediately shutting off TPS will create a crisis in our hospitals, nursing homes, and in the I/DD community," Lawler said.

That's a legitimate workforce concern worth debating on its merits. But Brown isn't making a narrow workforce argument. He's making a sweeping case against enforcement itself, against ICE, against the DHS secretary, against the Court's reading of a statute that Congress wrote. DeWine may share Brown's position on one policy question. He does not share Brown's broader hostility to the enforcement framework.

The broader Democratic reaction to the ruling shows where Brown's instincts actually land. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani publicly vowed to defy the decision, declaring the city would "never accept" it and signing an executive order barring ICE from entering city property, schools, shelters, hospitals, without a judicial warrant. Mamdani called the ruling "one of the largest attacks on immigrants in modern American history," the New York Post reported.

That is the company Brown keeps. Not DeWine's pragmatic employer-side caution, but the sanctuary-city left's reflexive defiance of federal law and Supreme Court rulings alike.

Follow the money

Brown styles himself as a populist fighting for the little guy. His donor rolls suggest otherwise. He received nearly $400,000 from lobbyists and corporate PACs tied to major health insurance companies. He took at least $4,887,980 from donors affiliated with Wall Street, major financial institutions, investment firms, and billionaires.

Nearly five million dollars from Wall Street-connected donors. This is the man telling Springfield residents that their real problem isn't the strain on housing, benefits, and public services, it's that the Supreme Court followed the text of a statute Congress passed.

The White House, for its part, celebrated the ruling. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called it "a tremendous win," noting that "temporary protected status is, by definition, temporary. It was never intended to be a pathway to permanent status or legal residency."

That distinction, between temporary and permanent, between a statute's plain text and a political class that wants to ignore it, is exactly what Brown refuses to acknowledge.

What the Court actually said

The core of the ruling is straightforward. Congress wrote a statute that says TPS termination decisions are not subject to judicial review. Six justices read the statute and applied it. The majority opinion, authored by Alito, found that the law means what it says: "no judicial review" of determinations involving the termination of a TPS designation.

Brown's response, calling the ruling "wrong", is not a legal argument. It is a political statement from a candidate who lost his Senate seat, is running again in a state that has moved right, and needs progressive base enthusiasm to stay competitive. The Court's recent term has produced several decisions that cut against progressive priorities, and Brown is positioning himself on the losing side of each one.

The arrival of thousands of Haitians in Springfield became a major political flashpoint during the 2024 election. Brown lost that race. Now he's running again on the same platform, opposing enforcement, demanding TPS extensions, calling for ICE to be gutted, and expecting Ohio voters to see it differently this time.

The real question for Ohio

Open questions remain about the ruling's implementation timeline, when affected Haitians will actually lose their status, work permits, and benefits. Those details matter and will shape the real-world impact on communities like Springfield.

But the political question is already clear. Brown is asking Ohio voters to believe that a program labeled "temporary" should last forever, that the agency enforcing immigration law should be "radically redone," that the DHS secretary should be fired, and that a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling applying the plain text of a federal statute is simply "wrong."

Ohio voters answered that question once already. Brown is betting they'll forget.