Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed preliminary relief postponing the effective dates of actions by the Secretary of Homeland Security to vacate an extension and terminate Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelan nationals. The panel held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the Secretary lacked statutory authority to vacate a prior TPS extension, and that irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest supported relief. The court also upheld the nationwide scope of the postponement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Ninth Circuit had interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and Carson v. American Brands, Inc. to review a district court's section 705 postponement order.
- Whether the TPS statute's judicial-review bar, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A), precluded review of the claim that the Secretary exceeded her statutory authority by vacating a prior TPS extension.
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred injunctive or postponement relief against agency action allegedly outside the agency's statutory authority.
- Whether the TPS statute authorizes the Secretary to vacate a prior extension of TPS, notwithstanding the statute's prescribed procedures and timing for termination.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding irreparable harm, favoring the balance of equities and public interest, and issuing nationwide preliminary relief.
Holdings
- The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the section 705 postponement had the practical effect of an injunction, threatened serious or irreparable consequences, and could be effectively challenged only by immediate appeal.
- The TPS statute's bar on judicial review of determinations concerning the designation, termination, or extension of a foreign state's TPS status does not preclude review of whether the Secretary had statutory authority to vacate a prior extension.
- Section 1252(f)(1) does not bar review or postponement relief for a claim that the Secretary's action exceeded the statutory grant of authority.
- The TPS statute does not authorize the Secretary to vacate a prior extension of TPS. If the Secretary wishes to end TPS, she must use the statutory termination procedures and comply with the statutory timing and notice requirements.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, faced irreparable harm, and were favored by the balance of equities and public interest.
- Nationwide postponement was permissible and necessary because narrower relief would not provide complete relief to the plaintiffs and would be inconsistent with the TPS statute's countrywide, binary designation structure.
Key quotations
“There is no general principle that what one can do, one can undo . . . .” (35)
“Where Congress itself has significantly limited executive discretion by establishing a detailed scheme that the Executive must follow in dealing with [noncitizens], the [Executive] may not abandon that scheme because he thinks it is not working well.” (40)
“TPS does not allow for partial determinations; no Secretary has the authority to designate a country for TPS when it comes to California residents, but not for Pennsylvania residents.” (51)
Factual background
The Department of Homeland Security designated Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status and repeatedly extended that designation, most recently extending the status through October 2, 2026. After taking office, Secretary Kristi Noem purported to vacate the January 2025 extension and then terminated the 2023 Venezuelan TPS designation, actions that threatened hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan TPS holders with loss of work authorization, family separation, detention, and deportation. Plaintiffs, including the National TPS Alliance and individual TPS holders, challenged the actions and sought preliminary relief.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sued in the Northern District of California on February 19, 2025, challenging the Secretary's authority to vacate a prior extension of Venezuelan TPS and asserting additional APA and Equal Protection Clause claims. On March 31, 2025, the district court postponed the vacatur and termination notices nationwide. The Government appealed on April 2, 2025. The Ninth Circuit held that it had interlocutory appellate jurisdiction, affirmed the preliminary-relief order, and held that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their statutory-authority claim.