The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just flipped the script on progressive immigration activists—and handed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a major legal victory in the process.
Fox News reported that in a unanimous move, a three-judge panel ruled that the Department of Homeland Security can follow through with terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals of Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal, reversing a lower court’s decision that had paused the process.
The reversal follows a legal standoff initiated by the National TPS Alliance, which sued Noem over the revocation effort after a lower court had delayed DHS action in July to allow more time for review.
The delay granted by the lower court was designed as a four-month pause—an opportunity, it argued, to examine the impact of DHS’s move to rescind TPS protections. But the Ninth Circuit wasn’t buying it.
Instead of indulging prolonged litigation, the panel stepped in and overruled the delay, giving DHS the green light to proceed with the policy change.
This ruling affects approximately 60,000 TPS recipients who had previously relied on temporary legal status to live in the United States, some for decades, under what began as humanitarian exemptions and gradually morphed into long-term residency.
The most striking part of this case? The panel’s rare unanimity. Even on the often activist Ninth Circuit, not exactly known for conservative leanings, all three judges agreed to move forward with revocation.
That tells you something: there wasn’t much legal basis to maintain an indefinite pause on a status that was, by definition, supposed to be temporary. “Temporary” shouldn’t become “permanent” by default.
This marks a win not just for DHS, but also for citizens who've grown weary of loophole policies that undermine immigration enforcement while placing increasing pressure on public services.
While the case isn't technically over, this decision allows Secretary Noem to proceed with DHS plans despite the pending litigation brought by the National TPS Alliance.
The permit by the Ninth Circuit essentially closes the door on a prolonged legal delay, removing one major roadblock for DHS efforts to restore order to a chaotic immigration structure.
Progressive groups had hoped to use the courts to stall DHS action—but in this case, even a historically liberal bench wasn't willing to carry their water.
Expect the focus now to shift toward how DHS will implement this revocation across affected communities. It’s not an easy lift, and no serious conservative should pretend this is a one-and-done fix.
Still, it's a significant correction to years of bureaucratic drift where TPS morphed into a quasi-amnesty program without congressional debate or formal adjustment to the law.
The courts stepping out of the way is a much-needed course correction in an area where the executive branch is rightfully reclaiming administrative clarity.
The progressive crowd scored an initial win with the lower court's pause, but the appellate ruling makes one thing clear: legal arguments have limits, even in left-leaning jurisdictions.
Activists may try to reframe this as a setback for “humanitarian values,” but the court didn't ban due process—it simply enforced the limits of a status designed to be short-term.
Noem’s policy opponents might have leaned on the word “compassion,” but the legal facts didn’t support their delay.
The broader implication of this decision is that courts—even traditionally liberal ones—will not ignore statutory definitions when executive agencies stay within their legal authority.
Time will tell how DHS handles implementation, but for now, the message is clear: TPS is not meant as an open-ended promise of residency.
That message matters—not just for legal integrity, but for a country trying to regain control over immigration policy without being accused of abandoning its principles.