Case: National TPS Alliance v. Noem
3:25-cv-01766 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: Feb. 19, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges the Trump Administration’s termination of immigration status for Haitians and Venezuelans.
On February 19, 2025, the National TPS Alliance (NTPSA) and Venezuelans with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) status filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs challenged DHS Secretary Noem’s decisions to (1) vacate the prior administration’s January 17, 2025 extension of TPS for Venezuelans through October 2, 2026; and (2) terminate TPS for the Venezuelans who initially registered in 2023. You can see another case challenging these same actions here.
TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to nationals of designated countries who are in the United States and cannot safely return to their home country. The complaint alleged these TPS-rescinding decisions would deprive over 600,000 Venezuelans of their right to live and work legally in the U.S. for the next 18 months. Plaintiffs further alleged that Secretary Noem's decisions were motivated, at least partially, by animus against Venezuelans based on their race, ethnicity, and national origin, in contravention of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs also argued that the defendants' decisions caused immediate harm to Venezuelan TPS holders, including family separation, psychological harm, and stigma.
The Plaintiffs, represented by ACLU affiliates and the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, alleged that the defendants' actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They asked the court to provide declaratory relief stating that the defendants' actions were unlawful and unconstitutional and that the January 17, 2025 extension remains in effect under its original terms. The plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief, including setting aside the defendants' vacatur and termination orders and enjoining the defendants from enforcing both others. The case was assigned to Judge Edward M. Chen.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 20, 2025, adding Haiti TPS to the case. Secretary Noem's decision of a "''partial vacatur' of the July 1, 2024, extension and redesignation of Haiti for TPS," shortening the designation period for eligible Haitian nationals to twelve months from sixteen months. The amended complaint adds four new plaintiffs, who are Haitian TPS holders, and an additional claim that the Haiti partial vacatur violates the APA.
On March 31, 2025, Judge Chen granted the plaintiffs' motion to temporarily postpone the challenged DHS actions pending final adjudication of the merits of this case, stating:
"[T]he Court finds that the Secretary’s action threatens to: inflict irreparable harm on hundreds of thousands of persons whose lives, families, and livelihoods will be severely disrupted, cost the United States billions in economic activity, and injure public health and safety in communities throughout the United States. At the same time, the government has failed to identify any real countervailing harm in continuing TPS for Venezuelan beneficiaries. Plaintiffs have also shown they will likely succeed in demonstrating that the actions taken by the Secretary are unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus." 2025 WL 957677.
The government appealed the district court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for postponement to the Ninth Circuit the following day. The government then filed an emergency motion to stay the order of postponement in the district court pending appeal, which the district court denied on April 4, 2025. 2025 WL 1019671. The government also sought a stay of the injunction in the Ninth Circuit on April 4, 2025.
Briefing in the Ninth Circuit was due in April and May, with argument in July. On April 18, the Ninth Circuit denied the government's emergency motion to stay the district court's March 31 injunction. 2025 WL 1142444. But on May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the injunction pending decision on the appeal and any Supreme Court review. 145 S.Ct. 2728.
On May 21, in the district court, the plaintiffs filed a motion to preserve the status and rights of TPS holders, asking the court to "recognize the continuing validity of TPS related documentation issued pursuant to the extension given by Secretary Mayorkas in January 2025 (which extended legal status and employment authorization to October 2, 2026) in order to preserve the status and rights of Venezuelan TPS holders who received such documents." The court granted the motion to preserve on May 30, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that Secretary Noem acted in excess of her statutory authority and arbitrarily and capriciously in invalidating the plaintiffs' TPS documents. Therefore, the court granted preservation of status to Venezuelan TPS holders who received TPS-related documentation based on Secretary Mayorkas's extension anytime up to and including February 5, 2025. 2025 WL 1547628.
On June 3, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim for discovery. The same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their claims that the vacatur and termination of Venezuela's TPS designation and Haiti's partial TPS vacatur were unlawful. Pointing to the district court's findings in its May 30 order granting the plaintiffs' motion to preserve, the plaintiffs argued that Secretary Noem's actions exceeded statutory authority and were arbitrary and capricious. Briefing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (the defendants filed their motion on June 17) was set to be completed on June 27, with a hearing set for July 11.
Discovery continued under Magistrate Judge Kim, with motion practice ensuing. On July 7, the plaintiffs filed a motion with Judge Chen for leave to file a supplemental complaint. The following day, on July 8, the motion was granted by Judge Chen and the plaintiffs submitted the supplemental pleading to the court. The complaint challenged Secretary Noem’s July 1, 2025 termination of Haiti’s TPS designation, which followed her earlier February 24, 2025 partial vacatur shortening Haiti’s TPS extension, alleging that the termination exceeded statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious.
Following a hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss, Judge Chen on August 25 ordered the proceedings to be stayed in light of the pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit.
On August 29, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order postponing the effectiveness of Secretary Noem’s TPS rollbacks pending resolution of the case. The Court of Appeals explained that the plaintiffs had shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the TPS statute does not authorize the Secretary to vacate or terminate prior designations in the manner attempted here. The panel further agreed that allowing Noem’s actions to take effect would inflict irreparable harm on hundreds of thousands of TPS holders, while the government had failed to demonstrate any countervailing injury from maintaining the status quo. Emphasizing the weight of both the equities and the public interest, the court concluded that preliminary relief was warranted and upheld the preservation of TPS protections during the pendency of the litigation. WL 2487771.
In the district court on September 5, Judge Chen granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the APA claim and denied all other dispositive motions. 2025 WL 2578045. He held that Secretary Noem exceeded her statutory authority under the TPS statute, which “authorizes only designation, extension, and termination,” and does not permit vacatur or retroactive curtailment of prior grants. The court further found the orders arbitrary and capricious under the APA because they failed to address the significant reliance interests of TPS holders whose lives and work authorization depended on the extensions. Judge Chen therefore set aside the challenged orders. He also rejected the government’s argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) stripped the court of jurisdiction, explaining that the statute limits injunctions but does not foreclose vacatur under the APA. The court declined to grant summary judgment on plaintiffs’ equal protection claim, reasoning that factual disputes over motive and intent required further development and could not be resolved at this stage.
The government filed a notice of appeal from the judgment to the Ninth Circuit on September 8, opening a new Ninth Circuit docket.
On September 9, defendants moved to stay enforcement in the district court while it pursued an appeal. Judge Chen denied the motion on September 10. He reasoned that the government had not shown a likelihood of success on appeal, particularly given the clarity of the statutory limits, and that the balance of equities weighed strongly against a stay. The court emphasized that TPS holders would face immediate and irreparable harm through loss of lawful status and work authorization if the judgment were paused, while the government had not demonstrated any comparable injury from complying with the order.
On September 12, 2025, defendants sought similar relief in the Ninth Circuit by moving to stay the district court’s summary judgment decision pending appeal and requesting an administrative stay while that motion was considered. On September 17, the Ninth Circuit, denied both requests, largely adopting the district court’s reasoning that plaintiffs had shown strong merits on their statutory claim and that the equities and public interest favored leaving the judgment in place. WL 2661556.
Defendants, on September 19, 2025, filed an emergency application in the Supreme Court (No. 25A326) asking the Court to halt enforcement of the district court’s September 5 judgment. The application requested an immediate administrative stay while the Court considered the filing, as well as a stay pending appeal. Although Judge Chen’s order addressed both Venezuelan and Haitian TPS actions, the government’s application sought relief only as to the Venezuelan portions, explaining that Haiti’s TPS designation was already set to expire within months and therefore did not warrant a stay.
That same day, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the request for an administrative stay. On September 22, Justice Kagan ordered a full response to the application by September 29. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 29, and the government submitted its reply on September 30.
On October 1, 2025, the government filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit to stay appellate proceedings due to the ongoing federal government shutdown, explaining that Department of Justice attorneys were prohibited from working on civil litigation during the lapse in appropriations. The next day, the Ninth Circuit denied the motion, holding that briefing would continue on the expedited schedule despite the shutdown. A day later, on October 3, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request for a stay pending appeal with respect to the Venezuelan TPS orders. WL 2812732.
On October 22, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for compliance with court orders related to TPS implementation in the Northern District of California. Judge Chen granted the request to shorten time, set a prompt hearing, and ordered defendants to respond on an expedited schedule. On October 23, 2025, Judge Chen denied the compliance motion as moot, and the court vacated the hearing. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for declaratory judgment on November 13, seeking a declaration—derivative of the court’s prior APA ruling—that DHS’s vacatur of the January 17, 2025 Venezuela TPS extension and termination of Venezuela’s 2023 TPS designation were unlawful, along with an administrative motion to shorten time for briefing and hearing.
On November 25, 2025, defendants separately filed a motion for reconsideration in the Ninth Circuit seeking vacatur of the Ninth Circuit’s August 29, 2025 opinion on the ground that intervening events had rendered the case moot. The Ninth Circuit ordered plaintiffs to respond by December 12, 2025. That motion remains pending.
Back in district court, on December 8, 2025, defendants filed a brief in opposition to an indicative ruling, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief while the appeal and Supreme Court stay were pending. On December 10, 2025, Judge Chen granted plaintiffs’ motion for declaratory judgment but stayed the relief for two weeks to permit an appeal to and request for a longer stay from the Ninth Circuit, concluding that declaratory relief was permissible because it was collateral to and derivative of the court’s prior judgment and did not materially alter the issues on appeal. WL 3539156.
Following entry of declaratory relief, on December 11, 2025, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second supplemental complaint and filed an administrative motion to shorten time regarding that request. Judge Chen granted the motion to shorten time on December 13, 2025.
On January 28, 2026, Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Salvador Mendoza, Jr., and Anthony D. Johnstone affirmed the district court's judgments setting aside Secretary Noem's vacatur and termination of Venezuela's TPS designation and partial vacatur of Haiti's TPS designation. 2026 WL 226573. The Ninth Circuit panel found that Secretary Noem lacked the statutory authority to vacate either Venezuela or Haiti's TPS designation. Judge Mendoza concurred, writing separately to "underscore why we must not permit government agencies to justify their actions with pretext, especially when that pretext is cloaking animus on the basis of race or national origin." 50. Because of the exigencies presented by this case, the Ninth Circuit provided that the mandate was to be issued within seven days of January 28.
In response to the Ninth Circuit's affirmation and forthcoming mandate, defendants filed a motion to stay the mandate and petition for rehearing en banc. On February 4, 2026, Judges Wardlaw, Mendoza, and Johnstone granted the defendants' motion to stay issuance of the mandate, pending adjudication of the petitioner for rehearing en banc.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Nicole Brigstock (4/21/2025)
Jeremiah Price (6/11/2025)
Jack Buckfire (12/15/2025)
Allison Opheim (2/10/2026)
Related Cases
Haitian Americans United Inc. v. Trump, District of Massachusetts (2025)
National TPS Alliance v. Noem, Northern District of California (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69655305/parties/national-tps-alliance-v-mullin/
Arulanantham, Ahilan Thevanesan (California)
Attorney, Lauren Michel
Attorney, Amanda Saylor,
Ankcorn, Mark (California)
Attorney, Matt A.
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69655305/national-tps-alliance-v-mullin/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 4:11 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 19, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The National TPS Alliance (“NTPSA”), a member-led organization representing Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders across the country, and individuals from Venezuela who have TPS.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
United States of America
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 3:25-cv-01766
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-02120
Supreme Court of the United States 24A1059
Supreme Court of the United States 25A326
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-05724
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border:
Work authorization - procedures
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of National TPS Alliance v. Noem, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/46147/ (last updated 2/10/2026).