On October 20, 2025, seven Syrian nationals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or pending applications for TPS, who have lived in the United States for years and have deep ties to this country and their communities, filed suit against the Trump administration. Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ decision to terminate Syria’s TPS designation, which is set to go into effect November 21, 2025.
TPS is a form of humanitarian relief provided by the INA, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to “designate” a foreign state for TPS based on certain conditions that make it difficult for nationals of that state to remain or return there, including armed conflict and natural disasters. To qualify for TPS, individuals must show, among other things, continuous physical presence in the United States from the most recent date of designation, continuous residence in the United States from a (potentially earlier) date designated by the DHS Secretary, and a lack of disqualifying criminal history.
Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ actions put plaintiffs with existing TPS at imminent risk of losing the critical humanitarian protection that TPS provides and rob plaintiffs with pending applications of the opportunity to have their applications adjudicated.
On October 21, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to postpone the effective date of Defendants’ agency action pending final resolution of the case on the merits.
On November 19, the court granted the plaintiffs’ emergency postponement of the termination of Syrian TPS, which was set to take effect on November 21.
Technical Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ decision to terminate TPS for Syria—made prior to consulting appropriate executive agencies, without regard to Syria’s dire country conditions, and by relying on impermissible factors—violates the TPS program’s statutory requirements and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Plaintiffs likewise allege that Defendants’ decision to provide only sixty days’ notice before the termination takes effect is unexplained and a departure from past practice of providing an orderly transition period, and separately violates the APA. Finally, plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ decision was motivated, at least in part, by racial, ethnic, and national-origin-based animus, and accordingly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Latest Updates
- 10/20/2025
