Skip to main content
Summary

Nine Haitian TPS holders, the Haitian Evangelical Clergy Association, and SEIU - Local 32BJ (a labor union) filed suit to challenge the Trump administration’s decision to partially vacate (nullify) the Biden administration’s 18-month extension of TPS for Haiti.

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.

Secretary Noem’s decision reversed a move by the Biden's administration last year to extend TPS for Haiti through February 2026. TPS was first granted to Haiti in 2010 following a devastating earthquake and has been renewed several times since. As a result of Secretary Noem’s actions, Haitians would be required to return to their country by August 3.

Plaintiffs argue that the early termination of TPS violates immigration law and was done without the proper review required by statute. They also argue that the decision was driven by racial bias against non-white immigrants, including against Haitians in particular.

The parties briefed Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (in which they argue the Court should order the relief they request) as well as Defendants’ motion to dismiss; those motions were fully briefed in early May 2025. The Court then held oral argument for the pending motions on May 28.

On July 1, the Court issued a decision partially granting summary judgment for Plaintiffs, finding that the Court has authority to review the Secretary’s partial vacatur of Haiti’s TPS designation and that the Secretary exceeded her authority in partially vacating the designation. As a result, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ requested relief to set aside and postpone the partial vacatur until the conclusion of the litigation. In the same decision, the Court also partially denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss, while ordering Plaintiffs to explain why their remaining claims (that the federal government’s partial vacatur was arbitrary and capricious and violated Plaintiffs’ due process rights and the equal protection clause) should not be dismissed by July 15, 2025. 

On July 15, Plaintiffs filed a letter agreeing that their remaining claims are moot and notifying the court of government action in defiance of the court’s order. That same day, the court issued a final judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor, staying DHS’s partial vacatur of Haiti’s TPS designation under the APA so that grants of TPS will not terminate until, at the earliest, February 3, 2026. The court also ordered the government to respond to Plaintiffs’ letter about non-compliance and set a conference to discuss.

Plaintiffs subsequently moved the court on July 23 to amend its judgment because, notwithstanding the Court’s summary judgment order, the government had yet to update its website or otherwise retract its prior Federal Register Notice to clarify that the federal government’s termination of Haitian TPS was no longer in effect following the court’s order. After the Plaintiffs filed their motion, the government updated its website to state that Haiti is designated for TPS through February 3, 2026, and that Haitian TPS holders’ work authorization has been auto-extended through that date. Based on this update and the government’s representations to the court that it will comply with the court’s summary judgment order, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion on July 28, 2025, but explicitly stated in that same order that employers should have no concern about the legality of employing Haitian TPS holders through February 3, 2026.  

Technical Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Secretary Noem’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Due Process Clause, equal protection, and was ultra vires.

Image
Blue and white cloud graphic with text that says "Freedom to Welcome" Justice Action Center, RAICES and UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy on the bottom.

TAKE ACTION

Defend Humanitarian Parole and Support Immigrant Justice Today!