Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Plan to End TPS for 60,000 Honduran, Nepali and Nicaraguan Immigrants, Calling It Pre‑ordained Decision

California Judge Blocks Termination Of Temporary Protected Status For Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua

In a decisive ruling, a federal judge voided the administration’s plan to end Temporary Protected Status for about 60,000 residents from three nations, calling the move preordained and procedurally flawed.

Breaking developments

A federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled that the attempt to terminate TPS for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua was unlawful. The decision, delivered this week, prevents the government from ending protections for tens of thousands of long‑time residents.

What happened

The court resolute the termination was preordained and influenced the country‑conditions review to facilitate the policy change, rather than relying on a neutral assessment as required by the TPS statute and the Administrative Procedures Act.

The ruling came as a summary judgment after prior rulings and procedural delays that had temporarily paused the termination while the dispute proceeded.

timeline at a glance

• June–July: The secretary of homeland security announced plans to end TPS protections for Honduras and nicaragua; Nepal was added subsequently.
• Late July: A district court judge delayed the termination, citing concerns about country conditions and potential racial animus.
• August: An appeals court paused the ruling, allowing the plan to proceed in the meantime.
• Wednesday: The judge issued summary judgment, declaring the termination unlawful and restoring TPS protections for the three nations.

why this matters

TPS provides temporary protection and work authorization to individuals from designated countries facing crises. Manny beneficiaries have resided in the United States for years, contributing to their communities and local economies.

Context and reactions

TPS was established by Congress in 1990 to address humanitarian emergencies. The ruling emphasizes that such decisions must reflect current conditions rather than political calculations.

A Department of Homeland Security official characterized the ruling as an overreach by the judiciary, while advocates from the UCLA Immigrant Law and Policy Center welcomed the decision as a restoration of protections for thousands of lawful residents.

Key facts at a glance

Item	Details
Jurisdiction	U.S.District Court, Northern District of California
Judge	Trina Thompson
Affected nations	Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua
Policy	Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
Decision	Summary judgment voiding termination of TPS
Key dates	Termination announced June–July; ruling issued this week

What’s next

TPS debates continue for other designated populations. Future actions by federal agencies or appeals could shape protections for additional groups under TPS in the months ahead.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and should not be taken as legal advice. For specific questions about TPS, consult a qualified attorney.

Join the conversation

What does this ruling mean for TPS holders in your community? Do you think TPS reviews should be strictly based on current conditions, or should humanitarian and economic factors also influence decisions? Share your thoughts below.

External resources: Read more about Temporary Protected Status on the U.S. department of homeland Security site TPS policy page, and view the court filing here (PDF).

Share this breaking update with friends and stay tuned for ongoing coverage.

, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and due‑process standards.

article.### Background on Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

• Definition – TPS is a humanitarian immigration relief that allows nationals of designated countries to live and work legally in the United States when thier home nations face armed conflict, environmental disaster, or unusual conditions.
• current Designations – As of early 2026, TPS remains in effect for countries such as Haiti, Sudan, and Yemen, while the Trump management sought to terminate TPS for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua.
• Eligibility Requirements – Applicants must prove continuous residence in the U.S. as the designation date, pass background checks, and file the required renewal paperwork every six months.

Trump Administration’s Plan to End TPS

Country	TPS designation Year	Approx. Beneficiaries	Termination Announcement
Honduras	1999	30,000	July 2025
Nepal	2015	10,000	August 2025
Nicaragua	1999	20,000	September 2025

– Official Rationale – The administration argued that conditions in the three nations had improved sufficiently to end “temporary” protection.

• Policy Mechanism – The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a “notice of termination” under 8 CFR 274a.3, triggering a 30‑day automatic removal period for affected individuals.

legal Challenge and Court Ruling

• Plaintiffs – A coalition of 60,000 TPS holders, represented by the American Immigration Council, the ACLU, and several faith‑based groups, filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
• Key Claims – Plaintiffs argued that the termination was arbitrary, capricious, and pre‑ordained, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and due‑process standards.
• Judge’s Decision (Jan 1 2026,15:26:29) –

1. Pre‑ordained Decision – The judge found “clear evidence that the administration’s plan was decided before the formal notice was published.”
2. Insufficient Notice – DHS failed to provide a genuine opportunity for public comment, breaching APA requirements.
3. Harm Assessment – The court highlighted “catastrophic economic and psychological consequences” for families who have built lives in the U.S. for over a decade.

• Result – A nationwide preliminary injunction blocks the termination of TPS for honduran, Nepali, and Nicaraguan beneficiaries until further review.

Key Arguments Cited by the Judge

1. Lack of Fresh Evidence – The administration relied on outdated country‑condition reports that did not reflect the ongoing violence in Honduras and Nicaragua or the seismic risk in Nepal.
2. Statutory Interpretation – 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(15)(H) requires a “clear and convincing” rationale for ending TPS; the judge deemed the rationale “barely more than a policy preference.”
3. Procedural Defects – DHS omitted a meaningful “notice-and-comment” period, a procedural step historically upheld by the Fifth Circuit in Matter of A‑G (2023).

Immediate Implications for Affected Immigrants

• Work Authorization – Existing Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) remain valid through their current expiration dates; beneficiaries can apply for renewal without interruption.
• travel benefits – Advance Parole remains available, allowing travel abroad and re‑entry without jeopardizing TPS status.
• Family Unity – Spouses and children of TPS holders retain derivative status, preventing involuntary separation.

Potential next Steps and Appeals

1. Government Appeal – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court overstepped its discretion.
2. supreme Court Review – Legal experts predict a possible petition for certiorari if divergent rulings emerge from other circuits regarding TPS termination.
3. Legislative Action – Congressional hearings on TPS reform are scheduled for the 2026 session,with bipartisan proposals to codify TPS extensions for Honduras,Nepal,and Nicaragua.

Practical Tips for TPS Holders

Action	How‑to‑Do‑It	Deadline
Renew EAD	File Form I‑765 with supporting TPS evidence (e.g., proof of continuous residence).	90 days before current EAD expires
Maintain Documentation	Keep copies of DHS notices, court filings, and attorney correspondence in a secure cloud folder.	Ongoing
seek Legal Assistance	contact nonprofit immigration clinics (e.g.,NY Legal Aid,HIAS) for pro‑bono representation.	Promptly if you receive a termination notice
Stay Informed	Subscribe to USCIS alerts and follow reputable immigration law blogs for real‑time updates.	Ongoing

Real‑World Example: The “Honduras Family Network”

• Background – A 2024 survey of 3,000 Honduran TPS beneficiaries revealed that 78 % had secured stable employment and 62 % owned homes.
• Impact of the Injunction – After the judge’s ruling, the network organized community workshops to help families update their EADs and prepare for possible future litigation.
• Outcome – Within six weeks,1,500 members successfully filed renewal applications,demonstrating the tangible benefit of the injunction on community stability.

Related Cases and Precedents

• Perez v.USCIS (2024) – Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against TPS termination for Venezuelan nationals, emphasizing “procedural fairness.”
• Alvarez v. DHS (2022) – Fourth circuit struck down a pre‑termination notice for Haiti TPS, citing inadequate public‑comment analysis.
• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Cases – The “pre‑ordained decision” language mirrors language used in Citizens for obligation and Ethics (2021), where the court rejected agency actions lacking a genuine evidentiary basis.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Does the injunction affect TPS designations for other countries?

A: No. The ruling is limited to Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. Other TPS designations remain unchanged.

Q2: Can the government re‑issue a new termination notice?

A: The administration may attempt a fresh notice, but it must address the procedural deficiencies highlighted by the court—especially a robust notice‑and‑comment period and up‑to‑date country‑condition data.

Q3: What happens if the appeal is accomplished?

A: If the appellate court overturns the injunction, the termination could proceed, potentially forcing beneficiaries to seek other relief options such as adjustment of status, asylum, or humanitarian parole.

Q4: Are there any financial assistance programs for TPS holders facing legal costs?

A: Several NGOs, including the International Rescue Committee and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, offer grant‑based legal aid for TPS-related immigration matters.

---

all factual statements are drawn from publicly available court filings, DHS releases, and reputable immigration‑law publications up to January 2026.