- “Stripping the lawful immigration status of 600,000 people on 60 days notice is unprecedented. Doing it after promising an additional 18 months protection is illegal. The government claims its inability to violate the law is an emergency, but the only emergency here is that lawfully present immigrants are being fired from their jobs, detained in immigration jails, torn from their families, and deported to a country where the U.S. government says it is unsafe to even travel.” – Jessica Bansal, counsel at the National Day Laborer Organizing Network
By Vanguard Staff
LOS ANGELES – Attorneys for Venezuelan and Haitian Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders filed a detailed opposition brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging justices to reject the Trump administration’s request for an emergency stay of a federal ruling that blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from stripping TPS protections. The case, National TPS Alliance v. Noem, could determine the fate of more than 600,000 Venezuelan immigrants currently shielded from detention and deportation.
Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of California held that Noem’s attempt to revoke TPS for Venezuelans and Haitians violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The government’s petition now before the high court seeks to reinstate Noem’s actions against Venezuelan TPS holders, a move that advocates say would inflict immediate harm on families and communities. While Haitians are not directly targeted in the pending stay application, the administration is appealing the district court’s order covering Haiti as well.
The opposition brief argued that the administration has failed to demonstrate any emergency that would justify extraordinary intervention by the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs warned that granting a stay would devastate families, destabilize communities, and contradict both the district court and the Ninth Circuit’s findings that the secretary acted unlawfully. Amicus briefs were also filed in support of TPS holders by 137 legislators, along with groups of law scholars and economists.
M.H., a Venezuelan plaintiff and member of the National TPS Alliance, said, “I am married to a U.S. citizen and the mother of two children, one of whom is a U.S. citizen. I rely on TPS to be able to care for my family. I cannot overstate the pain and fear my family is suffering with the government trying to cancel my legal status, and the legal status of my young daughter. Our presence here is not an emergency, no matter what the government says.”
Jose Palma, coordinator of the National TPS Alliance, said, “TPS holders work hard to take care of our families and contribute to this country. The administration’s attack on our community is wrong. Two courts have now found it is also illegal. Today, we call on the Supreme Court to uphold the law and deny the stay.”
The plaintiffs’ legal team, which includes the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the ACLU of Northern and Southern California, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, and the Haitian Bridge Alliance, stressed that Noem exceeded her authority by vacating an extension of Venezuela’s TPS designation.
The brief explained that the statute governing TPS, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a, sets out “explicit guidelines, specific procedural steps, and time limitations” that the secretary must follow. Nowhere does the law authorize the secretary to retroactively cancel or “vacate” a TPS extension after it has been lawfully issued.
The opposition brief noted that former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had extended Venezuela’s TPS designation on January 17, 2025, after a full review of country conditions and agency consultations, citing the nation’s “complex, serious and multidimensional humanitarian crisis.”
More than 600,000 Venezuelans qualified for protections under the extension. Just three days after taking office, Noem vacated the extension, citing supposed concerns about the registration process.
On February 1, she terminated the designation outright, stating that extension was “contrary to the national interest.”
Plaintiffs argue that both the vacatur and termination were unlawful because they ignored statutory requirements for consultation, country condition review, and adherence to deadlines.
Jessica Bansal, counsel at the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said, “Stripping the lawful immigration status of 600,000 people on 60 days notice is unprecedented. Doing it after promising an additional 18 months protection is illegal. The government claims its inability to violate the law is an emergency, but the only emergency here is that lawfully present immigrants are being fired from their jobs, detained in immigration jails, torn from their families, and deported to a country where the U.S. government says it is unsafe to even travel.”
Ahilan Arulanantham, faculty co-director at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, said, “During the Biden administration, the Supreme Court repeatedly ruled that federal agencies must act within the constraints Congress has imposed, including in immigration cases. Here, DHS Secretary Noem obviously flouted that principle when she tried to take away the protections for Venezuelan TPS holders that had already been granted to them. We hope the Supreme Court will apply the law in an even-handed way, rather than allowing the Trump administration to ignore it.”
Emi MacLean, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said, “Secretary Noem acted illegally to strip TPS from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans based on pretext and invented authority she does not have. The DHS secretary does not have free rein to ignore the law. The Supreme Court should not endorse the cruel actions of an administration, which seeks to circumvent the law and demolish the humanitarian protections Congress enacted 35 years ago.”
Erik Crew, staff attorney at the Haitian Bridge Alliance, said, “TPS holders are lawfully here because they have done what U.S. laws and the Constitution have asked of them. The Supreme Court should affirm what the lower courts have made clear: TPS holders have followed the law, but the Trump administration hasn’t.”
The plaintiffs’ opposition brief underscored that the administration has already caused harm while previous stays were in effect. When the Supreme Court allowed Noem’s actions to take effect temporarily earlier this year, families were separated, people lost jobs, and some were detained and deported to Venezuela. “Disturbing it now will cause massive injuries to Plaintiffs and their loved ones, including many American children,” the brief stated.
Immigration law scholars echoed those arguments in their amicus filing. They traced the history of TPS to decades of ad hoc, discretionary relief programs such as Extended Voluntary Departure, which allowed certain groups to remain in the United States temporarily but lacked transparency and statutory criteria.
Congress created TPS in 1990 to replace that system with clear, rule-based protections.
As the scholars explained, “Congress sought to regulate the process of providing humanitarian relief to ensure that the Executive exercised its authority to grant temporary protection on the basis of enumerated and consistent criteria, rather than unfettered discretion or political considerations.”
They added that TPS was designed to “constrain the executive branch’s discretion” and prevent arbitrary decision-making.
The scholars argued that the government’s position before the Court—that TPS decisions are effectively unreviewable and that the secretary can rescind extensions without following statutory procedures—runs directly counter to Congress’s intent.
They wrote that the legislative history shows TPS was enacted “to replace the current ad hoc, haphazard regulations and procedures” of earlier executive practices, ensuring transparency and consistency in protecting individuals who cannot safely return home.
Both the plaintiffs and supporting amici stressed that the equities strongly favor leaving protections in place while litigation continues. The government, they argued, cannot claim irreparable harm from being temporarily prevented from terminating TPS, while TPS holders would face immediate life-altering consequences if the stay is granted.
As the opposition brief stated, “A temporary pause in implementing a policy change—even an important one—cannot by itself constitute irreparable harm.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
