In a decision that has sent shockwaves through immigrant communities and advocacy groups across the United States, a federal appeals court in San Francisco has sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to move forward with the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 60,000 migrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal. The ruling, issued on August 20, 2025, by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, halts—for now—a lower court order that had kept TPS protections in place for these groups, setting the stage for a new chapter in the long-running legal and political battle over the fate of TPS holders.
TPS, a humanitarian program established by Congress in 1990, allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant temporary legal status and work authorization to immigrants from countries facing extraordinary circumstances, such as war, natural disasters, or political instability. For many, it has meant more than just a reprieve from deportation—it has meant building families, businesses, and lives in the United States. According to NPR, tens of thousands of Hondurans and Nicaraguans have lived in the U.S. for 26 years, since Hurricane Mitch devastated Central America in 1998, while Nepalese TPS holders have called America home for more than a decade, following the catastrophic earthquake in their country in 2015.
The recent appeals court decision stems from a lawsuit brought by the National TPS Alliance, which represents TPS holders from the affected countries. The group alleges that the Trump administration's decision to end TPS was not only unlawful but also motivated by racial animus—a claim echoed by U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson in her sharply worded July 31, 2025, order. Judge Thompson had found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's actions were "likely preordained decisions" that violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and she accused the administration of failing to conduct an "objective review of the country conditions," including ongoing political violence in Honduras and the lingering impact of hurricanes in Nicaragua.
"The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek," Judge Thompson wrote in her order, as quoted by Fox News. "Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood. The Court disagrees." Her order temporarily preserved TPS protections while the case moved forward, but the appeals court has now put that ruling on hold pending further proceedings.
The panel of appellate judges—appointed by presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump—did not provide a detailed rationale for its decision, a move that is not uncommon in emergency appeals. Nevertheless, the immediate consequences are clear: an estimated 7,000 Nepalese whose TPS expired on August 5, 2025, are now at risk of removal, and the status of 51,000 Hondurans and 3,000 Nicaraguans is set to expire on September 8, 2025. Unless they have found another legal avenue to remain in the U.S., these individuals will become eligible for deportation and lose their authorization to work legally, as reported by the Associated Press.
The Trump administration has maintained that TPS was always intended to be a temporary measure, not a pathway to permanent residency. "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," said Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, in a statement published by NPR. Secretary Noem has argued that the conditions prompting TPS designations for Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal—namely, the hurricane in 1998 and the earthquake in 2015—have since improved enough to allow nationals from those countries to return safely.
For the plaintiffs and their supporters, however, the stakes could not be higher. Many TPS holders have spent decades in the U.S., raising American-born children, contributing to local economies, and integrating into their communities. Jessica Bansal, an attorney at the National Day Laborer Organization, told the Associated Press, "The Trump administration is systematically de-documenting immigrants who have lived lawfully in this country for decades, raising U.S.-citizen children, starting businesses, and contributing to their communities." Sandhya Lama, a plaintiff in the case and a Nepalese TPS holder, expressed her anguish through the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California: "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."
The legal battle is far from over. The appeals court has requested new briefing schedules after a related case, National TPS Alliance v. Noem, is decided, and the next hearing in the current case is scheduled for November 18, 2025. In the meantime, the district court may continue to manage its docket as it sees fit, but the practical effect of the appellate decision is to leave thousands of families in limbo.
The controversy over TPS is not limited to these three countries. The Trump administration has already terminated TPS for about 350,000 Venezuelans, 500,000 Haitians, more than 160,000 Ukrainians, and thousands from Afghanistan and Cameroon, according to NPR and the Associated Press. Many of these decisions have sparked further lawsuits, and some remain tied up in federal courts. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the administration to end TPS for Venezuelans, offering no rationale for its decision, which is typical in emergency appeals.
From the administration's perspective, the ability to end TPS is a matter of executive authority and national security. Drew Ensign, a U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, argued in court that the government suffers "ongoing irreparable harm from its inability to carry out the programs that it has determined are warranted." On the other hand, immigrant rights advocates and some U.S. officials, such as Honduras Deputy Foreign Minister Gerardo Torres, have expressed deep disappointment. Torres told the Associated Press, "We're going to wait to see what the National TPS Alliance decides, it's possible the case could be elevated to the United States Supreme Court, but we have to wait."
As the legal wrangling continues, the human impact is immediate and profound. TPS holders—many of whom are laborers, health care workers, artists, and caretakers, as described in court filings—face the prospect of losing the stability they have built over decades. The debate over the future of TPS raises fundamental questions about the balance between humanitarian protection and immigration control, the limits of executive power, and the values that define American society.
For now, the future of thousands hangs in the balance, as courts, policymakers, and communities grapple with the consequences of a program meant to offer shelter in times of crisis—and what happens when that shelter is taken away.
