A federal appeals court in San Francisco has upheld a lower court’s decision to maintain temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, thwarting the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate these safeguards. The three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused the Department of Homeland Security’s request for an emergency stay while they appeal the ruling. The court stated that the government failed to demonstrate that they would face irreparable harm without a stay in place.
Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled that the reversal of protections by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was unlawful. These protections had been initially granted by the Biden administration, allowing approximately 350,000 Venezuelans to reside and work in the United States. These temporary legal protections were on the verge of expiration earlier this month.
In September, Noem announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for around 250,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians, with their protections set to expire in August. Government attorneys argue that Congress endowed the secretary with extensive authority over the TPS program, maintaining that these decisions fall outside judicial review. They criticized the district court’s involvement, labeling it as an extraordinary intrusion into the secretary’s duties regarding the TPS statute.
The TPS program, established by Congress in 1990, aims to prevent deportations to nations experiencing natural disasters or civil unrest. It grants eligible individuals the right to live and work in the U.S. for up to 18 months if conditions in their home countries are deemed unsafe by the Homeland Security secretary.
Judge Chen, in his decision to block the administration’s actions, highlighted the risks posed to hundreds of thousands of individuals, their families, and the economic stability of communities across the nation. He argued that the government’s stance did not identify any valid harm in continuing TPS for Venezuelans, suggesting that plaintiffs are likely to prove that Noem’s actions were unauthorized, arbitrary, and improperly influenced by unconstitutional bias.
Chen found the government’s arguments unconvincing and cited derogatory remarks by both Noem and Trump labeling Venezuelans as criminals as evidence of racial bias influencing the decision to end protections. He noted that acting on negative stereotypes and applying them to entire groups represents a fundamental example of racism.
