More than 1 million foreign nationals from 13 countries have lost Temporary Protected Status protections following a series of Trump administration terminations and court rulings, leaving many subject to removal while only narrow legal challenges remain.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
More than 1 million foreign nationals who had been permitted to remain in the United States under Temporary Protected Status have now lost those protections after the final court order blocking the Trump administration’s terminations was lifted Aug. 18.
The affected nationals are from Haiti, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Nepal, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, South Sudan, Burma, Somalia and Ethiopia.
Without another form of lawful immigration status, former TPS beneficiaries are now considered to be in the United States illegally and can be placed into removal proceedings.
The development follows months of litigation over the Department of Homeland Security’s decision under President Donald Trump to terminate protections for nationals of the 13 countries. The Supreme Court cleared a major obstacle in June when it allowed the administration to end TPS for Syrians and Haitians and adopted reasoning that carried implications for the remaining cases.
Lower courts had initially blocked some of the terminations, but those orders were gradually lifted. By Aug. 18, the last remaining judicial barrier had fallen.
The consequences are already beginning to emerge. The first deportation flight to Haiti following the Supreme Court decision departed Aug. 20 with more than 160 people aboard, according to Haitian officials. The passengers included former TPS beneficiaries as well as Haitians who had completed prison sentences in the United States.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, who has worked on immigration matters, said losing TPS does not mean every affected person will immediately be deported.
“That designation is gone. That protection disappears,” Rahmani said. “Now, that doesn’t mean a million people get deported. … They still have to go through the normal removal proceeding.”
Some former TPS holders could leave voluntarily, while others may already be subject to removal orders that predated their receipt of temporary protection.
DHS did not respond to requests for additional information about how it plans to enforce the terminations involving more than 1 million people.
After the Aug. 18 ruling, the department urged affected foreign nationals to leave voluntarily. DHS is offering a free flight to a person’s home country and a $2,600 payment for those who self-deport.
“For decades, TEMPORARY Protected Status was used as a [de facto] amnesty program. Those days are OVER. Those with terminated TPS are now in our nation ILLEGALLY. They must leave now or be swiftly DEPORTED,” DHS said on X.
Supreme Court Decision Reshapes TPS Litigation
Under federal law, the DHS secretary determines whether conditions in a country justify TPS designation.
The protection is intended for nationals of countries experiencing armed conflict, environmental disasters or other extraordinary and temporary dangerous conditions. Designations may be issued for six, 12 or 18 months and must be reviewed periodically.
If the DHS secretary determines that the underlying conditions no longer justify temporary protection, the designation may be terminated.
Legal challenges to the Trump administration’s decisions, which were made under then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, argued that the government failed to follow required procedures before ending protections, including adequately reviewing conditions in the countries involved.
Several judges initially agreed with those arguments.
The Supreme Court’s decision involving Syria and Haiti substantially changed the legal landscape. A majority of the justices agreed with the administration that federal courts lacked authority to review the department’s TPS decisions under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act barring judicial review.
The justices concluded that the restriction also applied to procedural claims, including challenges filed under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Some terminations had already taken effect by the time the Supreme Court ruled, while others remained blocked by lower courts.
DHS then publicly criticized some judges for not moving quickly enough to lift their orders.
DHS special counsel James Percival began posting daily messages on X identifying judges who had not yet issued rulings conforming with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Among those singled out was District Judge Brian Murphy, who handled the Ethiopia case. Murphy waited more than 50 days before lifting his administrative stay on Ethiopia’s TPS termination.
The Aug. 18 removal of the final judicial block appears to have largely ended the initial round of challenges, although attorneys in several cases are pursuing alternative legal theories.
Lawyers representing former TPS holders from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua are seeking permission to amend their lawsuit to include what they describe as a bare animus claim.
According to an Aug. 20 court filing, they contend that the administration’s TPS policy was unconstitutional “because they were motivated by explicit animosity and a desire to harm TPS holders.”
Federal attorneys responded that the plaintiffs “do not have any prospect of victory.”
The government cited an Aug. 7 ruling in litigation over Burma’s TPS designation in which a federal judge rejected a similar effort to add an animus claim.
“There is a distinction between bare desire to harm TPS holders and animus against TPS policy,” District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois wrote. “The Supreme Court’s reasoning in [the Syria and Haiti case] points to the latter, not the former.”
District Judge Trina Thompson of the Northern District of California, who is overseeing the Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua litigation, had not ruled on the amendment request at the time of publication.
Murphy, meanwhile, denied an attempt by Ethiopian plaintiffs to delay termination of their TPS protections but permitted them to amend their lawsuit with an ultra vires claim alleging that Noem exceeded her legal authority.
Rahmani said he expects any renewed litigation to face steep odds because of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“They can sue, but they’re probably gonna lose,” he said. “It’s been pretty clear the executive branch can remove these protections.”
Some TPS Designations Lasted Decades
The 13 nationalities losing TPS did not all enter the program under the same circumstances.
Some designations originated during wars. Syrians, for example, were granted TPS beginning in March 2012 as the country’s civil war intensified.
Others received protection after major natural disasters.
Haiti was designated following the catastrophic 7.0-magnitude earthquake in 2010. Nepal received TPS after a 7.8-magnitude earthquake in 2015. Honduras and Nicaragua received protections following Hurricane Mitch in 1998.
Somalia had remained under TPS longer than any of the 13 countries, dating to September 1991. Repeated extensions were granted across multiple presidential administrations because of decades of armed conflict and political instability.
The list is poised to grow.
Approximately 170,000 Salvadorans are scheduled to become the 14th nationality to lose TPS protections on Sept. 9. El Salvador has been designated for the program since March 2001 following devastating earthquakes.
Critics Warn of Humanitarian and Economic Consequences
The terminations have drawn opposition from immigrant advocacy organizations, Democratic lawmakers and some federal judges, who argue that several affected countries remain unsafe because of war, instability or humanitarian emergencies.
District Judge Allison Burroughs, who oversaw litigation involving Somalia, criticized the policy while lifting her previous order blocking termination.
She described Somali TPS beneficiaries as “productive members of our communities who have lived here for years, built a life here, worked here and raised their families here.”
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul also urged DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin to restore protections, arguing that removing thousands of foreign nationals from the workforce would cause a “heavy impact” across numerous industries.
“By knowingly and cruelly forcing thousands of families to leave our country and return to their home countries, regardless of any ongoing or worsening humanitarian crises, the White House is committing a reckless and inhumane act,” Hochul wrote.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., called for the Senate to return to session and approve legislation specifically extending TPS for Haitians.
In an Aug. 21 post on X, Pressley cited Haiti’s “ongoing humanitarian crisis.”
The House previously approved the measure by a 224–204 vote.
Federal officials have countered that the program was expressly designed to provide temporary protection and was never intended to function as a permanent route to U.S. citizenship.
What Former TPS Holders Can Do Next
Losing TPS does not necessarily leave every affected person without any potential immigration options.
Rahmani said some former beneficiaries could attempt to seek asylum, although obtaining asylum has become increasingly difficult.
Asylum is generally available to foreign nationals who can establish a well-founded fear of persecution or torture if returned to their home countries.
Others could potentially obtain legal status through marriage to a U.S. citizen, provided the marriage is legitimate rather than entered into for immigration purposes.
Rahmani described a bona fide marriage to an American citizen as one of the fastest and most straightforward routes for a foreign national to obtain status.
Former TPS holders may also accept DHS’s offer to self-deport with government-paid airfare and the $2,600 payment.
Others, Rahmani said, are likely to remain in the United States without legal status because locating and removing more than 1 million people will require substantial time and enforcement resources.
“I expect that a lot of people who don’t have legal status to be here, they‘ll continue to remain here, live in the United States unlawfully,” Rahmani said. “It’ll be up to DHS to find them, apprehend them, and remove them.”
Original article
Comments