Following a federal appeals court’s decision to halt the Trump administration’s TPS termination for 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal, the legal battle over the program continues to intensify. The ruling by the San Francisco-based appellate panel, which included judges appointed by former presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, has paused the lower court’s order that preserved TPS, effectively stalling the administration’s plan to end protections for these immigrants.
The National TPS Alliance, a coalition representing TPS holders and individuals from the three countries who challenged the administration’s decision, has accused the Trump administration of racism, claiming that the TPS termination was not based on a fair and individualized assessment of each country’s situation. The Alliance is now seeking an injunction to block the termination, arguing that the decision violates both legal procedures and the rights of the affected immigrants.
Judge Trina Thompson, a federal judge in California, initially ruled in favor of the immigrants, temporarily suspending the administration’s TPS decision. Her ruling stated that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s actions were preordained and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, noting that Noem’s motivations were rooted in racial animus. This finding has fueled the argument that the decision was not based on legal merits but rather on discriminatory considerations.
The appeals court’s ruling has significant implications for the administration’s deportation agenda, as it adds another legal hurdle for the Trump administration in its effort to remove undocumented immigrants and enforce stricter border policies. The decision to pause the lower court order will allow both sides to continue their legal battle, with the fate of the 60,000 immigrants still uncertain as the appeal moves forward.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the case, including some who have resided in the U.S. for over two decades, have emphasized their contributions to American society, describing themselves as laborers, healthcare workers, artists, and caretakers who have relied on TPS to provide basic security during crises in their home countries. Their attorneys argued that Noem’s decision to terminate TPS was not supported by the required individualized analysis of the countries’ situations and that the short notice period of 60 days was insufficient for the immigrants to prepare for their potential deportation.
The TPS program, which allows DHS to grant temporary residency to immigrants in extraordinary circumstances, such as wars or natural disasters, has been a cornerstone of immigration policy for decades. However, the Trump administration’s attempt to end this protection for certain immigrants has sparked widespread controversy, with critics condemning the decision as racially motivated and legally unjustified.
The ongoing legal battle highlights the deepening divide over immigration policy and the administration’s approach to border control. As the case moves forward, the court’s final ruling will determine whether the 60,000 immigrants will retain their TPS status or face deportation, potentially reshaping the future of immigration policy in the United States.