A federal judge in California has delivered a major setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for tens of thousands of immigrants from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua, ruling that the government likely violated federal law and the Constitution in the way it moved to terminate the program.
In a detailed order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in National TPS Alliance, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al., the court denied the administration’s motion to dismiss the case and granted TPS holders partial summary judgment on two key claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The judge also rejected the government’s bid for summary judgment on both the APA and Equal Protection claims, allowing the lawsuit to proceed on multiple grounds.
The ruling centers on decisions by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to end TPS protections for nationals of Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua, which for years have shielded them from deportation and allowed them to legally work in the United States. TPS for Nepal was originally granted after the devastating 2015 earthquake, while Honduras and Nicaragua were designated following the destruction of Hurricane Mitch in 1998, with protections repeatedly extended due to ongoing instability and humanitarian concerns.
In its order, the court found that the plaintiffs had plausibly shown that DHS’s termination decisions were “preordained” and driven by political directives rather than a genuine, statute‑compliant review of country conditions. Internal records cited in the decision show that DHS officials drafted termination memoranda for Honduras and Nicaragua before receiving updated State Department reports, and requested drastically shortened country summaries that emphasized “improvements” while omitting issues such as environmental damage and climate change.
For Nepal, the court noted that officials acknowledged the absence of an updated State Department report but decided to move forward because a prior recommendation favored termination, even as internal communications derided the extremely low level of TPS fraud as “laughable.” The judge concluded that such evidence supports the claim that DHS manipulated the process to reach a predetermined outcome, in violation of the APA’s requirement of “reasoned decision‑making.”
The court also highlighted a sharp break with more than two decades of agency practice on how TPS terminations are implemented. Historically, DHS had provided at least six months of transition time after announcing a termination, but in these cases the agency offered only the statutory minimum 60 days, while insisting that it was following established precedent. The judge ruled that the abrupt shift, without acknowledgment or explanation in the Federal Register notices, can be treated as an unlawful, unexplained policy change under the APA.
On the constitutional front, the court held that TPS holders had adequately alleged that racial and national‑origin bias was a motivating factor in the termination decisions. The order cites a series of statements by President Donald Trump, including characterizations of migrants as “poisoning the blood of our country” and complaints that the United States was not receiving immigrants from “nice countries” such as Denmark, Switzerland and Norway. It also points to social media posts and public comments by DHS and Secretary Kristi Noem that linked TPS holders with MS‑13 gang members, terrorists and murderers, and described TPS as an abused “amnesty” tool.
Applying the Supreme Court’s Arlington Heights standard for discriminatory intent, the judge found that these statements, combined with procedural irregularities and departures from longstanding TPS practice, are sufficient at this stage to support an Equal Protection claim and warrant further judicial scrutiny.
The government had argued that immigration law bars courts from reviewing TPS designation and termination decisions and that such choices are committed to the unreviewable discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The court rejected those arguments, holding that while Congress limited review of the Secretary’s ultimate TPS determinations, federal courts retain authority to examine whether the agency exceeded its statutory authority, ignored required procedures or acted with unconstitutional motives.
The decision has sweeping implications for TPS holders from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua, many of whom have lived in the United States for decades, raised U.S.‑citizen children and built careers and businesses. Class representatives in the case include a Honduran church pastor supporting four children, two of them autistic; a Honduran certified nursing assistant whose son relies on health coverage tied to TPS; a Nicaraguan worker with serious health conditions; and a Nepali single mother of three U.S.‑citizen children employed in a management role at a major company.
While the ruling does not itself permanently reinstate TPS, it preserves the legal challenge and sharply rebukes the administration’s approach, signaling that attempts to rapidly dismantle humanitarian protections without transparent, evidence‑based justification are vulnerable in federal court.
New York-based immigration attorney Keshab Seadie has provided further explanation regarding the court order and its impact on Nepali and other TPS holders. Following the federal court’s interim injunction halting the Trump administration’s decision to terminate TPS for immigrants from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua nationwide, Seadie said the order has effectively paused any deportation proceedings for the time being.
Seadie noted that it is almost certain the Trump administration will appeal the ruling, as ending TPS has been one of the core goals of its immigration policy. In previous unfavorable immigration rulings, the administration has consistently filed appeals. Similar TPS-related cases involving El Salvador, Haiti, and Sudan were also taken to higher courts.
According to Seadie, depending on jurisdiction, the government could take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and if it loses there, may request the Supreme Court’s intervention. For now, he said, as long as the court’s order remains in effect, TPS holders will retain their protected status and work authorization. The Department of Homeland Security cannot deport anyone solely on the basis of TPS termination, and while the litigation is ongoing, extensions are generally granted automatically. Seadie added that until a final decision is made, TPS holders can legally live and work in the United States.
Seadie outlined three possible outcomes going forward. If the government loses the appeal, TPS will remain in place, and the administration will need to restart a new decision-making process without bias. This could also increase pressure on Congress to create a permanent residency pathway for TPS holders, he said.
If the government wins the appeal, the termination process could resume, though the administration may provide six to eighteen months for transition and preparation. However, once that period ends, the risk of deportation would rise again. If the Supreme Court intervenes, it could either uphold or overturn the injunction, potentially setting a nationwide precedent on TPS and presidential authority, according to Seadie.
For TPS holders, Seadie offered some practical advice. He urged them not to travel outside the United States—even with advance parole—without first consulting a legal expert. He also advised TPS holders to renew their work permits as soon as they become eligible, to seek advice on other possible paths to permanent residency, and to keep copies of all court notices safely with them.
Kishor Panthi
View More PostsKishor Panthi is the founder and editor-in-chief of Khasokhas and NepYork. He is the author of three books, “Kampan,” "UNTRANSLATABLE" and “Zero Mile.” He writes about social issues, immigration, and politics.
