Key points:
- Federal judge halts Trump administration’s TPS terminations.
- Over 60,000 immigrants from Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua are affected.
- Judge Thompson found DHS’s rationale for TPS terminations to be unpersuasive.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge has issued a sweeping injunction halting the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate Temporary Protected Status for more than 60,000 immigrants from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua, allowing them to remain in the United States while litigation over the legality of the terminations continues.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson of the Northern District of California came just five days before TPS protections were set to expire for Nepali immigrants and roughly five weeks before Honduran and Nicaraguan recipients would lose legal status. In her decision, Thompson granted the plaintiffs’ motion to postpone the effective date of the Department of Homeland Security’s termination notices, preserving TPS status and work authorization for all impacted recipients through at least Nov. 18, when a hearing on the merits is scheduled.
“The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek,” Thompson wrote in the opening line of her 37-page order. “Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood. The Court disagrees.”
The lawsuit, National TPS Alliance v. Noem, was filed by TPS holders and the National TPS Alliance, who alleged that the administration’s decision to terminate protections was driven by racial animus, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment, and failed to follow the statutory process Congress created for ending TPS designations. The plaintiffs include individuals who have lived lawfully in the United States for more than two decades, raised families, paid taxes and contributed to their communities in roles as healthcare workers, construction laborers, teachers, pastors, union leaders and small business owners.
One of the lead plaintiffs, Sandhya Lama, is a 43-year-old single mother of three U.S. citizen children who came to the U.S. from Nepal in 2008. She earned a master’s degree from a Virginia university and currently works as a senior operations lead for Amazon. “Today’s court decision is a powerful affirmation of our humanity and our right to live without fear,” Lama said. “As a TPS holder and mother, this victory means safety, hope, and the chance to keep building our lives here. We stand united, grateful, and determined to continue the fight for a permanent future in the country we call home.”
Other plaintiffs include Johny Silva, a certified nursing assistant at Stanford Hospital and father of a child with autism; Denis Molina, a 49-year-old pastor from Honduras who supports four children, including two with special needs; and Maria Elena Hernandez, a 67-year-old Nicaraguan grandmother with asthma and a heart condition who has worked and paid into Social Security for over 25 years.
Judge Thompson found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their APA and constitutional claims, noting that DHS’s decision appeared preordained and politically motivated rather than based on a neutral, fact-based assessment of country conditions. The court also cited evidence that the Trump administration’s actions were taken in the context of discriminatory rhetoric equating immigrants and TPS holders with criminals and national security threats.
The decision points to the Trump administration’s “Invasion EO,” issued on Jan. 20, 2025, as a foundational document guiding the terminations. That executive order instructed agencies to “rescind the policy decisions of the previous administration” and cited “an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration,” accusing immigrants of committing “vile and heinous acts” and of “abusing the generosity of the American people.” The EO directed DHS to “ensure that designations of Temporary Protected Status are consistent with the provisions of section 244 of the INA … and appropriately limited in scope.”
Thompson’s order references DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s own statements, including a social media post associating TPS holders with “MS-13 gang members,” “known terrorists,” and “murderers,” and another post claiming migration enforcement would “get criminals off our streets.” Thompson wrote that the court “does not forget that this country has bartered with human lives” and drew parallels to past U.S. policies of racial exclusion and forced deportation.
“These actions were taken in the context of repeated rhetoric by administration officials that associated immigrants and TPS holders with criminal activity or other undesirable traits,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs here face similar tides. … Still, they face exclusion in the name of the President’s Invasion EO.”
Jessica Bansal, senior attorney with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said the ruling was a significant victory for immigrant communities. “Anyone who wonders who is being impacted by President Trump’s brutal immigration policies need look no further than his administration’s decision to strip lawful status from tens of thousands of TPS holders who have lived lawfully in this country for decades, in many cases raising U.S. citizen children, starting businesses, and contributing to their communities,” Bansal said. “We welcome the court’s decision postponing these cruel and illegal decisions.”
Thompson also sharply criticized the administration for omitting key facts in its termination notices. The June 2025 termination notice for Nepal cited improvements in disaster recovery following the 2015 earthquake but failed to mention the ongoing impacts of inflation, food insecurity and global economic disruptions previously cited by DHS itself in 2023. The July 2025 termination notices for Honduras and Nicaragua similarly omitted references to ongoing violence, corruption, drought, flooding, and extreme weather — all of which had previously justified continuing TPS.
“The Court finds that the Secretary’s justifications are unpersuasive and internally inconsistent,” Thompson wrote. She noted that DHS’s rationale ignored its own administrative record and that staff were instructed to “focus on any improvements” while disregarding worsening humanitarian conditions.
The court also rejected the government’s argument that federal immigration statutes stripped it of jurisdiction to review TPS terminations. Thompson found that the plaintiffs were raising legal and constitutional challenges — not factual disputes over country conditions — and that judicial review was therefore appropriate. She emphasized that Congress created TPS to standardize and regulate what had been an ad hoc and politically driven executive process.
“Congress has not delegated Defendants’ requested extraordinary grant of regulatory authority by using ‘any’ in the TPS statute,” Thompson wrote. “The Court declines Defendants’ invitation to both ignore Supreme Court precedent interpreting the word ‘determination’ and ignore Congress’ intent.”
Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and co-counsel in the case, said the ruling ensures that longstanding community members can continue to live and work in safety while the case moves forward. “These individuals have been working and contributing to their communities in the United States for decades,” Arulanantham said. “Under the Court’s order, these long-time lawful residents will have an opportunity to show that the federal government’s rush to strip their protections violates the rules Congress set in place.”
Teofilo Martinez, a plaintiff and leader in the National TPS Alliance, said the court’s decision “renews hope for our immigrant communities.” He added, “This ruling gives us strength, affirms the power of organizing, and reminds us what’s at stake: the right to stay in the only home many of us have ever known.”
Emi MacLean, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, said, “The Trump administration is aggressively, and illegally, seeking to dismantle TPS. But they will not do so without a fight. Today is a good day. Sixty thousand long-term residents of the U.S., who have followed all the rules, will be allowed to remain in the U.S. and continue to defend their rights inside and outside of court.”
The plaintiffs are represented by 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.
The full court order is available here, and more information about the case can be found at the ACLU of Northern California.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson, a Democrat appointed by Joe Biden 3 years ago.
Allegations of “judge shopping” by immigrant rights lawyers are a recurring theme in immigration discussions, particularly concerning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which covers California.
San Francisco is a hub for immigrant rights legal organizations, and cases challenging federal immigration policies are often filed in the federal courts located there.
Some sources suggest that immigrant rights groups may be strategically filing cases in jurisdictions, such as the Central District of California, that they believe are more sympathetic to their cause.
For example, a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge in the Central District of California, and upheld by the Ninth Circuit, blocked indiscriminate immigration sweeps based on factors like race, ethnicity, or speaking with an accent.
The Trump administration has criticized such rulings and has sought to overturn them, claiming the lower court’s ruling was based on “media speculation” and anecdotal declarations rather than objective evidence.