In a significant recent legal shift, the Trump administration has made strides toward ceasing the temporary deportation protections known as Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 60,000 immigrants hailing from Nicaragua, Honduras, and Nepal. The fate of these immigrants was momentarily secured by a lower court’s decision last month, which delayed the cessation of their protected status at least until mid-November, urging more judicial considerations of the matter. However, this relief was short-lived as the appellate tribunal intervened.
The critical turning point came when the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided to put the previous halt on the termination of TPS on hold while the appeal progressed. Although the order was issued without a detailed rationale, it drew significant attention because of the mix of appointed judges from varied administrations, including Clinton, Bush, and Trump, signifying a varied judicial perspective.
These protection programs are vital lifelines for tens of thousands of migrants from specified countries deemed unsafe due to natural disasters or conflict. TPS offers them a temporary reprieve from deportation along with work permits, enabling them to reside legally in the U.S. during hazardous conditions in their home countries. Should these protections end without alternative legal avenues such as green cards or asylum, these individuals would face losing their lawful employment status and become susceptible to deportation.
Before the intervention of the appeals court, the Trump administration had scheduled the termination of TPS for Nepali nationals on August 5, followed by Nicaraguans and Hondurans in early September. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, among other plaintiffs, challenged this decision, arguing that the administration’s motion was underlain by racial prejudices.
The ACLU publicly declared the appellate court’s decision as “devastating,” reflecting deep concern and emotional stress within the affected communities. Individuals like Sandhya Lama, a plaintiff from Nepal, voiced their fears candidly. Having settled and established a life in the U.S., and with children who are American citizens and unfamiliar with Nepal, such individuals face a tremendous uncertainty regarding their family’s future.
From the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) viewpoint, the appellate ruling was described as a “significant legal victory.” DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin emphasized that the intent of TPS was always meant to be temporary and was never designed to be a substitute for the asylum system. She criticized the extension of such protections by previous administrations, pointing out the lack of stringent immigration vetting.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has been actively seeking to phase out TPS for migrants from several countries, including Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, and Venezuela, arguing that either the protective status had been unnecessarily prolonged or that the conditions in these nations had ameliorated enough to permit safe returns.
The inception of TPS for Honduras and Nicaragua dates back to 1999, following catastrophic floods triggered by Hurricane Mitch, which resulted in significant fatalities and destruction in Central America. Similarly, the TPS for Nepal was introduced in 2015 in the aftermath of a devastating earthquake. According to Secretary Noem, the trio of countries has sufficiently recovered from these disasters.
However, this perspective was challenged in the San Francisco-based U.S. District Court. Judge Trina Thompson last month highlighted possibilities that the immigrants’ lawsuit, which asserts that the termination decisions were predetermined and did not adequately assess the ongoing adversities in Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua, could prevail.
Adding another layer to the controversy were comments by President Trump during his 2024 campaign, which entailed harsh rhetoric about illegal immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country.” This comment was referenced by Judge Thompson in her deliberations, marking it as a potential influence on the administration’s immigration policy decisions.
As the legal battles unfold, the lives of thousands hang in balance, caught between policies and protections, each awaiting their fate in a country they have grown to call home. This complex issue continues to unfold, involving not just legal interpretations but deeply human stories of hope, fear, and a longing for stability. The court’s final decisions will significantly determine the future pathways for these migrants and potentially set precedents for the handling of temporary protections moving forward.
