LOS ANGELES — The Trump administration has filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from more than 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants currently shielded under a federal court order. The government’s application for a stay, filed late Wednesday, asks the Court to overturn a lower court ruling that blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from terminating the program.
The case, National TPS Alliance v. Noem, challenges Secretary Noem’s January decision to end TPS for Venezuelans, a move advocates say was driven by racial animus and an unlawful interpretation of immigration statutes. The district court agreed, ruling that the termination likely violated federal law and constitutional protections, and temporarily barred the administration from implementing it.
In its request for Supreme Court intervention, the government argues the lower court’s order “usurps executive authority” and risks setting a “dangerous precedent” by allowing courts to second-guess national immigration policy. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue a stay last month, clearing the way for the case to proceed while preserving TPS protections.
The stakes are enormous. If the Supreme Court grants the stay, it would lift the lower court’s injunction and immediately expose thousands of Venezuelan TPS holders—many of whom arrived in 2023—to detention and deportation.
“This case is about whether the president can use immigration powers as a political weapon, in defiance of the law,” said Ahilan Arulanantham of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at UCLA. “The district court’s detailed, well-reasoned order allows the Venezuelan community to continue living and working in this country while the case moves forward.”
That order, issued March 31, 2025, found a likelihood that the administration acted unlawfully and with racial bias in its abrupt termination of TPS. The court noted that Secretary Noem’s decision came just days into her tenure, with no new evidence or national security rationale presented to justify reversing the prior administration’s designation of Venezuela as unsafe.
“The record before the Court includes disturbing evidence that racial bias toward Venezuelans and the Latino community more broadly may have played a role in the Secretary’s decision-making process,” Judge Jeffrey King wrote. He cited public statements from administration officials as well as internal communications suggesting hostility toward migrants from Latin America.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, including the ACLU Foundations of Northern and Southern California, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and the Haitian Bridge Alliance, have condemned the administration’s request as politically motivated and harmful.
“There is no emergency here that compels the Supreme Court’s intervention,” said Emi MacLean, senior attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “But the government has asserted one to avoid complying with a court order that merely allows Venezuelans who cannot safely return to their country to stay here while the court decides if the government’s actions are lawful.”
That claim of “no emergency” was underscored by the district court itself, which wrote that “the harm to plaintiffs from deportation far outweighs the government’s claimed interest in immediate enforcement,” especially when the Secretary offered no compelling explanation for urgency .
Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries, many of whom have fled economic collapse and political repression, now face renewed uncertainty. For Cecilia Gonzalez Herrera, a plaintiff in the case, the stakes are deeply personal.
“The administration is creating a false narrative about Venezuelan migrants who come here seeking refuge,” she said. “We want to work hard to contribute to the country, and cannot safely go back to our country. This administration’s continued assault disregards the facts about our community and about the situation in Venezuela.”
Since its inception, the TPS program has provided humanitarian relief to individuals from countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions. President Biden designated Venezuela for TPS in early 2023, citing systemic instability, rampant inflation, and human rights abuses. That designation was set to expire in 2025 but was expected to be renewed until Secretary Noem announced its immediate termination in January.
In a now-public email obtained during discovery, a senior official described the TPS decision as “an early win for the base,” framing the move as a political gesture rather than a policy justified by country conditions.
“The government’s actions are unprecedented and illegal,” said Jessica Bansal, counsel for NDLON. “And no one will suffer any harm from allowing members of this vibrant community to stay while they are tested in court.”
Jose Palma, coordinator for the National TPS Alliance, warned that stripping TPS now would upend lives.
“Stripping them of their lawful immigration status would mean separating families, destroying businesses, and impoverishing our communities,” Palma said. “As always, in the face of ongoing attacks, the National TPS Alliance stands united in the fight for the dignity and rights of all TPS holders and the immigrant community as a whole.”
The Trump administration’s request marks the latest flashpoint in a broader legal and political battle over immigration authority. While the Constitution grants the executive broad discretion in foreign affairs, federal law imposes limits on how and when TPS designations can be terminated. The plaintiffs argue the administration ignored those constraints—and targeted Venezuelan migrants with discriminatory intent.
The district court appeared to agree. In his opinion, Judge King stated, “The sudden reversal, coupled with the administration’s rhetoric and lack of factual findings, supports the inference that this action may not have been motivated solely by national interest, but also by improper considerations.”
The Supreme Court is expected to respond to the government’s emergency application within the next two weeks. In the meantime, more than 350,000 Venezuelans wait—protected, for now, by the lower court’s ruling.
The plaintiffs are represented by a coalition of immigration and civil rights organizations: the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the ACLU Foundations of Northern and Southern California, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, and the Haitian Bridge Alliance.
For now, as Ahilan Arulanantham from UCLA put it, “We hope the Supreme Court will see the government’s request for what it is: an attempt to seize power that neither Congress nor the Constitution allows it to exercise.”
