SAN FRANCISCO, CA – A coalition of long-term U.S. residents and immigrant rights advocates filed a sweeping lawsuit this week against the Trump administration, challenging its decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 60,000 individuals from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. The plaintiffs argue the decision is not only unlawful, but a deliberate step toward dismantling humanitarian protections for immigrants across the board.
Filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, the lawsuit is brought by the National TPS Alliance, a grassroots organization representing more than 320,000 TPS holders, along with seven individuals who have lived legally in the United States for between 10 and 26 years. The plaintiffs include a hospital worker, a pastor, a small business owner, a theater artist, and multiple parents of U.S. citizen children. Together, they represent the human toll of what attorneys call a politically motivated campaign to end TPS without regard for the law, due process, or human dignity.
TPS is a statutory form of humanitarian relief created by Congress in 1990, designed to protect nationals of countries undergoing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions that make return unsafe. The protections include work authorization and protection from deportation—but they are temporary and must be renewed by the Secretary of Homeland Security based on a review of country conditions.
Under the Trump administration, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has taken an unprecedented approach: terminating longstanding TPS designations with just 60 days’ notice—far shorter than the six- to eighteen-month wind-down periods granted under every prior administration. The lawsuit challenges this shift as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.
One of the plaintiffs, Jhony Silva, has lived in the U.S. since the age of three and currently works as a certified nursing assistant in a cardiology unit in California. “I’ve been in the United States since I was a toddler. This is my only home,” Silva said. “I work in a hospital, caring for cardiac patients. I’ve paid my taxes. I’ve done everything by the book. And now, in a matter of weeks, I could lose my job, my health insurance, and the ability to care for my family.”
Plaintiffs from all three countries described similar stakes. Some have spent decades in the United States and are now raising U.S. citizen children. Others own businesses or work in sectors suffering from labor shortages. Maria Elena Hernandez, a 67-year-old Nicaraguan TPS holder, warned that she would lose her job, access to Social Security, and healthcare coverage if TPS is revoked. Another plaintiff, a Nepali theater worker, said she had been planning to return to school before the threat of deportation forced her to abandon those plans.
“These are people who have contributed to this country for decades,” said Jessica Bansal, an attorney with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. “To summarily strip them of legal status without fully considering current country conditions or the consequences of such disruption is not only cruel—it’s unlawful.”
The complaint alleges that the termination of TPS was not based on an objective, statutorily required review of conditions in Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua, but rather stemmed from a broader effort by the Trump administration to roll back nearly all TPS designations. Citing a January 20 executive order titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” the lawsuit argues that President Trump and Secretary Noem conflated legal immigrants with undocumented individuals and issued directives to rescind TPS protections as part of a larger anti-immigration strategy.
The administration’s own statements and documents are central to the plaintiffs’ case. In public remarks, Secretary Noem has accused the TPS program of being “abused and manipulated,” asserting that it was never meant to be long-term. Yet under the law, TPS extensions must be based on current country conditions—not ideological objections to the program’s longevity.
Court documents show that DHS failed to provide the customary consultation with other federal agencies, such as the State Department, when deciding to terminate TPS. Moreover, they reveal that the government selectively relied on “positive developments” in the three countries—such as modest increases in tourism or real estate investment—while ignoring ongoing humanitarian crises, political instability, and public health emergencies that had previously warranted protection.
For instance, the lawsuit notes that DHS cited “notable improvements” in Honduras without addressing recent reports of gang violence, political repression, and economic collapse. In Nicaragua, DHS disregarded mounting evidence of human rights violations and authoritarian crackdowns. In Nepal, the government ignored widespread food insecurity and a fragile post-earthquake recovery still years from completion.
The plaintiffs also argue that the administration’s decisions were driven by racial and national-origin-based animus, in violation of the Constitution. The complaint references President Trump’s longstanding pattern of derogatory comments about immigrants from non-European countries, and his administration’s internal communications suggesting a preordained outcome for TPS terminations.
The lawsuit also targets the administration’s refusal to provide a reasonable transition period for people who have lived in the U.S. legally for decades. In contrast to past practice, the administration’s new 60-day timeline leaves families scrambling to prepare for job losses, potential deportation, and separation from U.S. citizen children with little time or recourse.
“Never before has DHS given so little notice to people who have been here so long,” said Emi MacLean, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California. “It is a shocking departure from practice, and a clear violation of administrative law.”
Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, emphasized that the stakes extend far beyond the plaintiffs in this case. “This is a test of whether our government will honor legal protections designed to shield people from unsafe return,” he said. “TPS holders from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua have lived here lawfully, paid taxes, raised families, and built communities. Now they face a government willing to discard them for political expediency.”
The plaintiffs are asking the court to vacate DHS’s termination orders and block their enforcement while the case proceeds. If successful, the ruling could safeguard legal protections for tens of thousands of TPS holders and prevent the unraveling of one of the country’s most vital humanitarian immigration programs.
A hearing date in the case has not yet been scheduled. The plaintiffs are represented by a legal team from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the ACLU Foundations of Northern and Southern California, the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, and the Haitian Bridge Alliance.
