The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday held that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) likely acted unlawfully when it tried to roll back Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans. While the decision marks a legal victory for advocates and TPS recipients, it remains largely symbolic for now, as an earlier Supreme Court order allows the administration to proceed with deportations as the case moves forward.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said that DHS, under Secretary Kristi Noem, lacked the statutory power to “vacate” a valid extension of TPS that had been granted in the final days of the Biden administration. That extension, issued by then-Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in January 2025, offered legal protection and work authorization to both 2021 and 2023 cohorts of Venezuelan TPS holders until October 2, 2026. Just 17 days later, Secretary Noem revoked it, citing confusion, alleged improvements in Venezuela’s conditions, and vague appeals to “national interest.”

Wardlaw rejected that this line of reasoning was incompatible with the TPS statute’s design, which she described as “predictable, dependable, and insulated from electoral politics.” The panel emphasized that Congress deliberately created a system of renewable protections, lasting six to eighteen months, precisely to avoid the ad hoc, politically motivated reversals that had defined immigration relief before the TPS law’s enactment in 1990. “No administration has attempted to vacate an existing temporary protection status designation in the thirty-five years in which the program has existed,” Wardlaw wrote.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by the National TPS Alliance and several Venezuelan TPS holders who argued that DHS’s abrupt reversal violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded its statutory authority. In March, US District Judge Edward Chen agreed and granted a nationwide postponement of the agency’s actions. But in May, the Supreme Court intervened on an emergency basis and stayed Chen’s ruling, allowing the administration to begin phasing out protections for roughly 348,000 individuals. Those with earlier TPS status from 2021 remain covered until September 10, 2025.

Friday’s ruling affirms Judge Chen’s conclusions but cannot take effect unless the Supreme Court lifts its stay. As a result, while the Ninth Circuit sided with the plaintiffs, the administration’s policy of winding down Venezuelan TPS remains intact for now.

Advocates hailed the opinion as a critical affirmation of the rule of law. “Today’s decision does not give us an immediate solution, but it sends a signal that we are on the right side of history,” said José Palma, co-coordinator of the National TPS Alliance.

The TPS program, signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, allows individuals from countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters, or extraordinary instability to live and work in the US temporarily. Venezuela was designated for TPS in 2021 due to a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, and that designation was renewed and expanded in 2023 under President Biden. The 2025 extension was intended to unify the two tracks and ensure continuity for over 600,000 Venezuelan migrants.

That plan changed dramatically after President Trump returned to office. In one of his first immigration moves, he issued an executive order directing DHS to reevaluate TPS designations. Secretary Noem’s reversal followed swiftly—first vacating the extension, then formally terminating the 2023 designation.

Wardlaw’s opinion calls the move unlawful, arguing that Congress clearly prohibited mid-period terminations and never granted DHS the authority to vacate prior extensions. The court also noted that the TPS statute requires a minimum of 60 days’ notice before termination can take effect—something Noem’s actions failed to honor. Since the program is inherently national in scope, the court upheld the district court’s decision to issue nationwide relief.

“The TPS statute is designed to constrain the Executive,” Wardlaw wrote. “Sudden reversals of prior decisions contravene the statute’s plain language and purpose.”