On August 21, 2025, a pivotal court decision sent shockwaves through immigrant communities across the United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous 3-0 ruling, cleared the path for the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 60,000 migrants from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. This decision, which immediately strips legal status from thousands and sets the clock ticking for others, has ignited fierce debate and left families reeling with uncertainty.
TPS, a humanitarian program established in 1990, offers temporary legal status and work authorization to nationals of countries deemed too dangerous to return to due to war, natural disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. Over the years, many recipients have built lives, families, and careers in the U.S., renewing their protections every 18 months, as required by law and subject to background checks. For some, like Nepali nationals, TPS had been granted for over a decade; for Honduran and Nicaraguan recipients, more than 26 years, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as reported by Missouri Independent.
The origins of the current legal battle trace back to June and early July of 2025, when Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem announced the termination of TPS for migrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal. This move was part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to roll back temporary protections for several nationalities, including those from Haiti and Venezuela, and to end humanitarian protections for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. The administration justified these actions by arguing that TPS had strayed from its original intent and had become a de facto asylum system. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin stated, "TPS was never meant to be a de facto asylum system, yet that is how previous administrations have used it for decades while allowing hundreds of thousands of foreigners into the country without proper vetting. This unanimous decision will help restore integrity to our immigration system to keep our homeland and its people safe."
However, the Trump administration's efforts soon faced legal resistance. In late July, Judge Trina Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a forceful ruling halting the termination of TPS for these groups. In her 37-page order, Judge Thompson accused Secretary Noem and former President Trump of acting out of "racial animus." She wrote, "The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek. Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood." Judge Thompson extended TPS protections for Honduran, Nepali, and Nicaraguan nationals until November 18, 2025, while the case proceeded.
The legal challenge was spearheaded by a coalition of advocacy groups, including the ACLU Foundations of Northern and Southern California, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, and the Haitian Bridge Alliance. Their lawsuit, National TPS Alliance v. Noem (No. 3:25-cv-05687), argued that ending TPS would devastate families and communities and was motivated by discriminatory beliefs. Many of the plaintiffs have lived in the U.S. for years, with deep roots and U.S.-citizen children. One such plaintiff, Sandhya Lama, a TPS holder from Nepal, voiced the anguish felt by many: "I am heartbroken by the court’s decision. I’ve lived in the U.S. for years, and my kids are U.S. citizens and have never even been to Nepal. This ruling leaves us and thousands of other TPS families in fear and uncertainty."
Despite Judge Thompson’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—comprising Judges Michael Daly Hawkins (a Clinton appointee), Consuelo M. Callahan (appointed by George W. Bush), and Eric D. Miller (appointed by Donald Trump)—intervened on August 21. Without providing a detailed explanation, the three-judge panel granted the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court’s order. As a result, Nepali immigrants with TPS lost their legal status, including work permits and deportation protections, immediately. Honduran and Nicaraguan TPS holders were given until September 8, 2025, to prepare for the loss of their status.
The ruling did not address the merits of the underlying discrimination claims but did allow the administration to proceed with its policy changes while the legal process continues. The Supreme Court, for its part, has so far permitted many of the Trump administration’s TPS rollbacks to move forward, further narrowing avenues for relief.
For advocates and affected families, the consequences are dire. Emi MacLean, an attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, described the ruling as "a devastating setback, but it is not the end of this fight. Humanitarian protection–TPS–means something and cannot be decimated so easily." The organizations involved have vowed to continue their legal battle, emphasizing the humanitarian purpose behind TPS and the contributions of its recipients to American society.
Meanwhile, the political divide over immigration has only deepened. Supporters of the administration’s actions argue that TPS was always meant to be temporary and that conditions in the home countries have improved sufficiently to warrant its termination. They also contend that the program has been abused, allowing individuals to remain in the U.S. indefinitely without proper vetting. DHS, echoing these sentiments, maintains that restoring "integrity" to the immigration system is paramount to national security.
Opponents, however, point to the lengthy duration of TPS for some nationalities as evidence of persistent instability and danger in their home countries. They argue that uprooting families who have lived in the U.S. for decades—many with U.S.-born children—serves no practical purpose and inflicts needless harm. The emotional and economic impact on communities, schools, and workplaces is expected to be significant, especially as thousands face the threat of deportation or the loss of their livelihoods.
As the legal battle continues, TPS recipients and their families are left in limbo, uncertain of their futures. The decision by the Ninth Circuit marks a turning point, but it is far from the final word. Both sides are preparing for further court proceedings, and the fate of tens of thousands now hangs in the balance.
For many, the American dream feels more elusive than ever, caught between shifting policies and the realities of life in a country they have long called home. As one chapter in the long-running TPS debate closes, another begins—one filled with questions, anxieties, and the hope that justice, in whatever form it takes, will eventually prevail.
