9th Circuit Allows DHS to End Temporary Protected Status for 60,000 Foreign Nationals

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can proceed with ending temporary protected status (TPS) for nearly 60,000 foreign nationals living in the United States. This decision allows the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to revoke TPS for approximately 50,000 Hondurans, 3,000 Nicaraguans, and 7,000 Nepalis.

The ruling highlights a significant legal and humanitarian tension, as critics argue that ending TPS could expose vulnerable populations to unsafe conditions in their home countries. Supporters of the decision contend that the DHS has the authority to terminate TPS based on changing conditions in those nations.

TPS is a humanitarian program that allows individuals from designated countries to remain in the U.S. temporarily due to conditions that prevent safe return, such as natural disasters or armed conflict. The program was initially established to provide relief to those affected by crises, but its future has been contentious, particularly under the Trump administration.

Key Details

In its unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit granted a request from the Trump administration to stay a December 2025 ruling by District Judge Trina Thompson, who had previously vacated DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s revocation of TPS. The panel determined that the government was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal and would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted.

Background and Reactions

The judges noted, "We conclude that the government is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal either by showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction or by prevailing on plaintiffs’ arbitrary-and-capricious APA challenge." They emphasized that Noem’s termination of TPS is "an action expressly authorized by statute."

The plaintiffs in the case had argued that the DHS’s termination decisions violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which governs how federal agencies make rules. Judge Thompson had sided with the plaintiffs, asserting that the government did not follow proper procedures in its decision-making process.

However, the 9th Circuit found that the government had adequately supported its actions. The ruling stated that the Secretary’s decision-making process was not arbitrary and capricious and that the administrative record justified the termination of TPS for the affected countries. The court also noted that the Secretary had consulted with appropriate agencies and provided valid reasons for the decision.

The ruling comes amid ongoing debates about immigration policy and the status of individuals in the country illegally. Critics of the decision argue that ending TPS could lead to significant hardships for those affected, as conditions in their home countries may not be safe for return. They contend that the government should consider the current realities in these nations before making such decisions.

In contrast, supporters of the ruling assert that the DHS must have the flexibility to respond to changing conditions in foreign countries. They argue that the program should not be permanent and that the government has a responsibility to ensure that TPS is used appropriately.

The 9th Circuit's decision is consistent with previous rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, which has allowed similar applications from the Trump administration to pause lower court injunctions regarding TPS. The judges referenced these past rulings as part of their reasoning for granting the stay.

The panel included Judges Eric Miller, Consuelo Callahan, and Michael Hawkins, with Hawkins authoring a concurring opinion. He expressed agreement with the court’s judgment but refrained from addressing the merits of the plaintiffs’ APA claims at this stage of the appeal process.

As the legal battle continues, the implications of this ruling could affect thousands of individuals who have relied on TPS for protection from deportation. The decision underscores the ongoing complexities surrounding immigration policy and the balance between national security and humanitarian considerations.