I am trying to be neutral but the only two conservative justices that questioned the Solicitor General's reasoning were Justice Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts.
Solicitor General does have some strong points, with the most strongest one being the language of the statute barring judicial review. However, some of the case law he brought to the table doesn't really support his arguments, and he was called out for it multiple times.
The main issues are:
-Is the decision from the Secretary to terminate TPS subject to Judicial Review even when Congress enacted a statute barring judicial review.
-What is the meaning of the word "consultation." Does it require a response from the agency or person being consulted. What if you reach out to an agency to ask about country conditions but they never respond, is that "consultation"?
-The meaning of the word "Determination"
The two possible outcomes:
- Justice Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts join Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson: 5-4
Or
- The obvious party line split: 6-3.
One final note: I do believe the arguments for the Venezuelan TPS Designation are different from Haiti and Syria. The Venezuelan TPS has overlapping determinations weeks apart from each other: The extension before Biden left office and the termination weeks after Trump took office.