SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully moved to end Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua, restoring protections for roughly 60,000 people and sharply rebuking the administration for what the court described as a preordained, politically driven process that disregarded statutory requirements and basic principles of administrative law.
In a sweeping summary judgment order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the court held that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to conduct a lawful review of country conditions and by distorting the decision-making process to achieve a predetermined outcome: termination of TPS.
“Unilateral power has never been American,” the court wrote at the outset of its ruling, emphasizing that Congress enacted the TPS statute to codify humanitarian relief and constrain executive discretion. “By complying with the Constitution and enforcing the purpose of the Temporary Protected Status statute, this nation’s economy becomes strengthened and our society united.”
Temporary Protected Status was created by Congress in 1990 to protect people already in the United States who cannot safely return to their countries because of armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions. The statute requires the secretary of homeland security to periodically review current conditions in designated countries, consult with appropriate government agencies and engage in reasoned decision-making before terminating protections.
The court found that the administration failed on each of those core obligations. In granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the judge concluded that Secretary Noem “failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act,” including requirements to review country conditions and consult with the U.S. State Department, and instead “distorted the review process to achieve the desired result of terminating TPS.”
Internal records cited by the court showed that decision memos for Honduras and Nicaragua were drafted before updated country conditions information was received, while officials acknowledged that no meaningful State Department recommendations were obtained. In the case of Nepal, the court noted that officials proceeded without an updated State Department report because “the recommendation was to terminate so we should move forward.”
The ruling also describes how Department of Homeland Security staff sought to narrow or revise country reports to emphasize “improvements,” exclude references to climate change or environmental concerns and avoid broader humanitarian and political factors. The court found that such constraints were incompatible with the TPS statute, which requires a genuine assessment of whether a country can safely receive returning nationals.
The judge concluded that the terminations were arbitrary and capricious, relying on what the Supreme Court has described as “contrived” or pretextual justifications rather than the true basis required by law. Accepting such explanations, the court wrote, would “defeat the purpose” of judicial review under the APA.
The court also rejected the administration’s argument that TPS decisions are immune from judicial review, holding that while the substance of a termination decision may be discretionary, courts retain authority to review whether the decision-making process complied with statutory and constitutional limits.
Many plaintiffs expressed relief following the ruling. Nepalese plaintiff Sandhya Lama said the decision allows her to return to work and live without fear of deportation, adding that “the Secretary should never have been allowed to act with such disregard for the law.”
The case record details significant harm suffered by TPS holders during the period of threatened termination. Honduras plaintiff Jhony Silva said he lost his job as a certified nursing assistant and was forced to halt his studies to become a nurse because of the administration’s actions. The court found that such reliance interests were substantial and that abrupt departures from long-standing practices, including the provision of orderly transition periods, further violated administrative law.
Even though the attempted terminations were temporary, the court acknowledged that the damage inflicted could not be undone. “The harm already caused by the administration’s cruel, lawless actions cannot be undone,” said Jessica Bansal, an attorney with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, adding that the ruling offers hope for “a measure of justice and peace” for TPS holders.
The lawsuit was brought by the National TPS Alliance and supported by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the ACLU Foundations of Northern California and Southern California, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law, and Haitian Bridge Alliance.
ACLU attorney Emi MacLean emphasized that the ruling reaffirmed core limits on executive power. “Secretary Noem must follow the law,” she said. “This court found the evidence overwhelming that she did not. The TPS statute has provided essential humanitarian protection for 35 years. It cannot be disregarded so readily.”
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.
