A coalition of organizational and individual plaintiffs sued DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to challenge her decision to 1) vacate (nullify) the 18-month extension of Venezuelan Temporary Protected Status (TPS) granted by the Biden administration on January 17, 2025, and 2) terminate the Biden administration’s 2023 designation of Venezuelan TPS, which enabled individuals who had continuously resided in the U.S. as of July 31, 2023, and who had been continuously physically present in the U.S. as of October 3, 2023, to apply for TPS.
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.
On January 19, 2021–the day before President Biden was inaugurated–the first Trump administration designated Venezuela for immigration relief in the form of Deferred Enforced Departure, which allows foreign nationals to remain and work in the U.S. lawfully while conditions in their homeland are unsafe. The Biden administration then designated Venezuela for TPS on March 9, 2021, subsequently extending that designation multiple times, and also re-designated Venezuela for TPS on October 23, 2023, which enabled additional, more recently arrived Venezuelan nationals to apply for TPS. The Trump administration has published Federal Register Notices vacating the Biden administration’s January 17, 2025 extension of Venezuelan TPS and terminating the October 23, 2023 re-designation of Venezuelan TPS.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Federal Register Notices are unlawful and also unsupported by reasoned decision making, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. They also argue that the decision to terminate Venezuelan TPS was motivated by intentional discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. On March 31, 2025, Judge Edward Chen granted the Plaintiffs’ motion to postpone the effective date of the order vacating the Biden administration’s extension of Venezuelan TPS, finding that the Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on all their legal claims. The federal government has appealed.
Meanwhile, on March 20, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to challenge Secretary Noem’s similar actions cutting short TPS for Haitians. On April 29, 2025, the federal government moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
On May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s application for a stay of Judge Chen’s order while the Ninth Circuit appeal proceeds, allowing the government’s termination of Venezuelan TPS to move forward. In its order, the Supreme Court stated that it does not affect the ability to challenge Secretary Noem's February 3, 2025 vacatur notice to the extent that it “purports to invalidate EADs, Forms I-797, Notices of Action, and Forms I-94 issued with October 2, 2026 expiration dates.” On May 21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a court order preserving the status and rights of individuals who received those relevant documents with October 2, 2026 expiration dates. On May 30, the judge partially granted Plaintiffs’ motion, ruling that certain documents will remain valid pending a final decision in the case.
On June 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgement. On July 8, Plaintiffs filed an amended and supplemental complaint, which the government moved to dismiss two weeks later.
On August 7, 2025, the government filed a supplemental brief requesting the court temporarily stay (pause) adjudication of all pending motions before the court—including the government’s motion to dismiss and both parties’ motions for summary judgment—while awaiting the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Nat’l TPS All., et al., v. Noem, et al., No. 25-2120 (9th Cir.). Plaintiffs filed a brief opposing the government’s requested stay. On August 25, Judge Chen granted the government’s request and stayed proceedings until further order.
On Friday, September 5, Judge Chen granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the government’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, finding the federal government’s move to cancel TPS for more than one million Venezuelans and Haitians violated the Administrative Procedure Act. He concluded that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem did not have the authority to cancel a previously granted extension, that she did not lawfully exercise the authority that she had, and that the termination decisions were pretextual and did not follow proper procedures. The decision restores the January 17, 2025 extension of Venezuela’s TPS designation, which extended TPS and work authorization for all Venezuelan TPS holders–whether they first registered for TPS in 2021 or 2023.
The government moved for a stay of the judgment while it appeals, but on September 10, Judge Chen denied the motion. The government noticed its appeal to the Ninth Circuit that same day.
On September 9, Plaintiffs moved for compliance with the summary judgment order given the government’s failure to allow individuals to renew their TPS online and removal of the option to register online for TPS for Venezuela. The government argued that the judge’s order was not yet in effect, but after a hearing on September 11, the court granted the motion the same day. Judge Chen held that his order was effective immediately and ordered the government to update their website to reflect his order restoring TPS for Venezuela and Haiti and to reopen TPS registration for Venezuelans for 24 hours. However, although both the district court and the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s requests to pause the summary judgment order, on October 3, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request for an emergency stay, allowing the administration to terminate Venezuelan TPS.
On November 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for declaratory relief on their Venezuela-related claims while their previously-won summary judgment order remains stayed. Judge Chen granted this motion one month later, but stayed the order to allow the government to appeal and seek a stay (pause) on this relief from the Ninth Circuit. In his order, Judge Chen reaffirmed his decision on the merits that the administration’s actions to end Venezuelan TPS were unlawful and found that he had jurisdiction to award declaratory relief, which could assist members of the National TPS Alliance in individual cases.
technical summary
The Plaintiffs challenge the vacatur of the January 17, 2025 extension and the termination of the October 23, 2023 re-designation of Venezuelan TPS as in excess of statutory authority, contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and pretextual under the APA. The Plaintiffs also bring an Equal Protection claim, alleging that the vacatur and termination are unconstitutional because they were motivated by animus based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. They ask the court to issue declaratory relief, to set aside or to postpone the vacatur and termination, and to enjoin enforcement of the vacatur and termination.
The government’s April 29, 2025 motion to dismiss is very similar to the motion to dismiss filed in CASA v. Noem, another case challenging the termination of Venezuelan TPS. Like the motion to dismiss in CASA v. Noem, the motion to dismiss in National TPS v. Noem contends that the TPS statute bars judicial review of Plaintiffs’ claims; that actions concerning TPS are committed to agency discretion by law; and that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) bars judicial review because Plaintiffs seek to “enjoin” or “restrain” operation a statutory provision covered by § 1252(f)(1). The motion further argues that the vacatur of the January 17, 2025 extension of Venezuelan TPS, the termination of the October 23, 2023 re-designation of Venezuelan TPS, and the partial vacatur of the July 1, 2024 extension and re-designation of Haitian TPS were neither arbitrary and capricious nor contrary to law under the APA.
In response to Plaintiffs’ motion for compliance, the government argued that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a), there is an automatic stay of 30 days on execution of a judgment and that, although Rule 62(c) carves out an exception for a final judgment in an action for an injunction, Judge Chen’s order was not injunctive in nature. Therefore, DHS argued that it did not need to comply with the summary judgment order yet. Judge Chen held that the stay in Rule 62(a) does not apply, as it “primarily serves to give one against whom a money judgment is entered time to post a [] bond to stay enforcement of that judgment pending appeal,” and regardless, the rule gave the court the authority to give the final judgment immediate effect. He further held that under Rule 62(c), there was no automatic stay in the case.
Latest Updates
Full Timeline and Documents
- 08/25/2025
- 07/21/2025
- 03/20/2025
- 02/20/2025
- 02/19/2025
