The fate of tens of thousands of migrants from Central America and Nepal has taken a dramatic turn after a federal appeals court sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to proceed with ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these individuals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued an emergency stay on August 20, 2025, effectively halting a lower court’s July 31 order that had preserved TPS protections for nearly 60,000 people from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal pending further legal review.
TPS is a humanitarian program that, for decades, has provided a lifeline for people whose home countries are ravaged by war, natural disasters, or political upheaval. It allows recipients to live and work legally in the United States, shielding them from deportation while their home nations remain unsafe. According to Associated Press, the Trump administration has aggressively targeted the program as part of a broader effort to expand deportations and narrow legal avenues for immigrants to remain in the country.
The appeals court’s decision means that approximately 7,000 Nepali migrants whose TPS expired on August 5 are now subject to removal, while the protections for about 51,000 Hondurans and 3,000 Nicaraguans are scheduled to end on September 8. Many in these groups have lived in the U.S. for decades—Hondurans and Nicaraguans since 1998, after Hurricane Mitch devastated Central America, and Nepalese since the 2015 earthquake that rocked their homeland. As BBC and Reuters report, rights advocates argue that these migrants have built lives in the U.S., raised American children, and contributed to their communities.
The legal battle over TPS has been fierce. U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson had previously ruled in favor of TPS holders, temporarily blocking the Trump administration’s move to end the status. In her July 31 order, Judge Thompson found that the administration had failed to conduct an “objective review of country conditions,” specifically citing ongoing political violence in Honduras and recent destructive storms in Nicaragua. She concluded that terminating TPS would cause “irreparable harm” to recipients and noted the broader economic and social impacts of removing tens of thousands of workers from the U.S. labor force and communities.
Despite this, the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit granted the administration’s request for an emergency stay. The judges, appointed by former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, wrote, “The district court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion to postpone, entered July 31, 2025, is stayed pending further order of this court.” The panel did not provide detailed reasoning for its decision, prompting criticism from immigrant rights advocates. Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, remarked, “The court’s failure to provide any reasoning for its decision, including why this was an ‘emergency,’ falls far short of what due process requires and our clients deserve.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has defended the administration’s decision to end TPS for these groups, arguing that conditions in their home countries have improved sufficiently. In a statement, Noem said the designations were no longer warranted. DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin echoed this sentiment, stating, “TPS was never meant to be a de facto asylum system, yet that is how previous administrations have used it for decades.” Administration officials argue that extending TPS beyond emergencies undermines the program’s original intent.
However, immigrant advocacy organizations fiercely dispute the administration’s claims. Jessica Bansal, an attorney at the National Day Laborer Organization, stated, “The Trump administration is systematically de-documenting immigrants who have lived lawfully in this country for decades, raising US-citizen children, starting businesses, and contributing to their communities.” The National TPS Alliance, a coalition representing TPS holders, has gone further, alleging that Secretary Noem’s decisions were not only unlawful but “motivated by racial animus” and driven by President Trump’s campaign promises.
Government attorneys, for their part, maintain that the executive branch is entitled to set immigration policy. Drew Ensign, a U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, told the court that the government suffers “irreparable harm” from its “inability to carry out the programs that it has determined are warranted.” The administration’s legal team contends that a temporary reprieve for TPS holders could set a precedent that would effectively turn the program into a permanent fixture for certain groups, rather than a temporary response to extraordinary circumstances.
The controversy over TPS is unfolding against the backdrop of a broader, more aggressive immigration enforcement posture in 2025. According to Newsweek, the Trump administration claims to have deported approximately 140,000 individuals by April 2025, with projections for the year reaching 212,000. The number of detainees in ICE custody has soared, with daily arrests sometimes nearing 2,000—a staggering 268% increase compared to mid-2024. The administration has also expanded detention infrastructure, opening new facilities such as Nebraska’s “Cornhusker Clink.”
Moreover, the Trump administration has already ended TPS designations for more than a million immigrants from other countries, including 350,000 Venezuelans, 500,000 Haitians, over 160,000 Ukrainians, and thousands from Afghanistan and Cameroon. Many of these terminations remain tied up in litigation, and the Supreme Court has recently allowed the administration to terminate TPS for Venezuelans, declining to rule on the underlying claims.
As the legal wrangling continues, the next hearing in the Central America and Nepal TPS case is scheduled for November 18, 2025. Until then, the lives of tens of thousands of migrants hang in the balance, uncertain whether the country they have called home for years will soon require them to leave. The outcome of this case will not only determine the future for these individuals but could also set a precedent for how the United States handles humanitarian protections for vulnerable populations in the years to come.
For now, the court’s ruling has put the Trump administration’s hardline immigration agenda back on track, even as advocates vow to keep fighting for the rights—and futures—of those who have relied on the promise of TPS.
