The Department of Homeland Security, under Secretary Kristi Noem, received a court ruling on February 9, 2026, supporting its effort to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal.
Legal Battle Over TPS
Secretary Noem characterized the ruling from the Ninth Circuit as “a victory for the rule of law” and asserted that the Biden administration had previously used TPS to allow “violent terrorists” into the United States. The Ninth Circuit’s decision temporarily suspends a December 2025 ruling by Judge Trina Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Thompson had previously blocked the termination of TPS for these countries, finding the process used to end the program was inadequate and did not properly consider conditions in the countries.
A three-judge panel determined the government is likely to succeed in its appeal, either due to a lack of jurisdiction in the lower court or because the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decisions are supported by the administrative record and the law. Noem stated via X that TPS had become “a de facto amnesty program,” despite not being designed for that purpose.
What is TPS?
TPS protects individuals from certain countries experiencing violence or economic hardship. Those granted TPS cannot be deported and are authorized to work in the United States, but are not eligible for U.S. Citizenship. A central argument in this case revolves around the “Temporary” nature of the program, with some believing conditions in Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal have improved sufficiently to no longer warrant continued protection.
Opponents of ending TPS, including migrant advocacy organizations, argue that the level of insecurity in these nations is not being adequately assessed, and that thousands would be negatively impacted, having built lives and careers in the United States. The suspension remains in effect while the Ninth Circuit fully considers the appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted this legal challenge?
The case originated from a lawsuit filed last year by the National TPS Alliance and beneficiaries of the program from Nicaragua, Honduras, and Nepal. The government appealed Judge Thompson’s decision in early January.
What did Judge Thompson find problematic with the initial decision to end TPS?
Judge Thompson found that the process used to terminate TPS was inadequate and did not properly consider the conditions in the countries of origin.
What is the government’s position on TPS?
The government argues that TPS was intended to be temporary and that the program has been misused, and that the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decisions are supported by the administrative record and the law.
As the Ninth Circuit reviews the case, the future of TPS for migrants from these three nations remains uncertain. A final decision could significantly alter the legal status and lives of thousands of individuals and families.
