The appeals court in San Francisco has paused a lower court order and allowed the federal government to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status for people from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua, setting up a higher-stakes legal fight over immigration discretion. The decision came from the Ninth Circuit and signals that, at least for now, the administration can pursue its argument that ending TPS was a reasoned exercise of authority. This development keeps enforcement options alive while the courts sort through procedural and legal challenges.
The panel issued a stay that blocks a district judge’s order which had vacated the Department of Homeland Security Secretary’s termination decision. That lower court had sided with plaintiffs who said the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act by being arbitrary and capricious. The appeals court, however, judged that the government is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to that ruling.
“The government is likely to prevail in its argument that the Secretary’s decision-making process in terminating TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal was not arbitrary and capricious,” court documents said. That line matters because it recognizes the basic administrative law principle that agencies can revisit past designations when facts change. From a Republican perspective, law and order includes the ability for administrators to apply judgment about temporary policies without being blocked indefinitely by the courts.
Secretary Kristi Noem moved last year to end protections for the three countries, arguing that TPS is, by definition, temporary and must be reevaluated against current conditions. Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua initially received protections after discrete natural disasters—Nepal after the 2015 earthquake and the Central American nations after Hurricane Mitch in 1999. Noem and her team have framed the move as restoring statutory fidelity and pushing back against mission creep that turned temporary humanitarian relief into long-term sanctuary.
Noem’s office has emphasized that TPS was never intended to become a permanent immigration path, and that it must be revisited when the emergency basis for a designation fades. That argument appeals to conservatives who favor clear rules and predictable enforcement rather than open-ended policies. It also reflects a view that policy levers should reflect current realities, not decisions frozen in time decades ago.
Pam Bondi, representing the Justice Department in court, hailed the decision as a win and said it helps the administration continue deportation efforts. “This is a crucial legal win from @TheJusticeDept attorneys that helps clear the way for President Trump’s continued deportations,” she said. “As the court found, ‘the government is likely to prevail in its argument’ that ending Temporary Protected Status for some immigrants is sound and lawful policy. We are proud to represent the Trump Administration in court every day.”
The administrative challenge was brought by the National TPS Alliance and others who argued the termination was arbitrary, unlawful and harmful to people who have built lives in the United States. A San Francisco district judge agreed on December 31, 2025, canceling the termination order and prompting the immediate appeal. The Ninth Circuit’s stay now pauses that district court decision while the appellate process proceeds, reflecting the system of checks that gives appellate courts the chance to weigh complex statutory interpretations.
The appeals panel included judges appointed by presidents from both parties, and opinions show some consensus on procedure even where judges differ on how far to go at an early stage. Two judges handled the main analysis and a third wrote a concurring note that agreed with the outcome under recent Supreme Court direction while cautioning against premature rulings on underlying claims. For conservatives watching immigration policy, the stay is a practical win: it preserves executive flexibility and prevents abrupt reversals that could hamper enforcement strategy while the legal fight plays out.
