National TPS Alliance v. Noem
3:25-cv-01766
N.D. Cal.May 30, 2025Background
- The Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Mayorkas (Biden administration) extended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuela to October 2, 2026; Secretary Noem (succeeding administration) vacated this extension and terminated TPS as of April 7, 2025, after required notice.
- Plaintiffs are Venezuelan TPS holders seeking to preserve the validity of their legal status and documentation (including work authorization) issued under the Mayorkas extension.
- The district court initially postponed Noem’s actions under the APA, but the Supreme Court stayed this postponement, while leaving open challenges regarding the invalidation of specific TPS-related documents issued with October 2, 2026 expiration dates.
- Plaintiffs moved to preserve the status and rights of those who received documentation based on the Mayorkas extension, specifically targeting Noem’s retroactive invalidation of those documents.
- The central dispute: whether the government could retroactively invalidate TPS documentation already issued before publication of notice of TPS termination (Feb 5, 2025), and, if not, what group of TPS holders are entitled to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secretary’s authority to immediately invalidate TPS documents | Noem exceeded statutory authority by retroactively invalidating documentation already issued based on Mayorkas extension. | Noem’s invalidation was proper; argued vacatur was not covered by termination rules, extension never took effect. | Noem exceeded authority; TPS statute doesn’t allow immediate invalidation before notice publication. |
| Whether Secretary’s action was arbitrary & capricious | Invalidation was arbitrary/capricious because TPS holders had vested reliance interests in issued documents. | Agency acted within discretion; argued statute didn’t protect these documents, Mayorkas extension ineffective. | Action was arbitrary/capricious; reliance interests in issued documents were ignored. |
| Entitlement to relief (scope: document types) | Any TPS holder who received any documentation (EADs, I-94s, I-797, etc.) under Mayorkas extension is entitled to relief. | Relief should be narrow, limited only to finalized documentation explicitly bearing Oct 2, 2026 expiration dates. | Relief covers all document types issued under extension, not just explicit approvals with the extension date. |
| Entitlement to relief (scope: time cutoff) | Relief should cover documentation issued up to May 19, 2025 (Supreme Court stay) or at least April 7, 2025 (formal termination date). | Relief should be further limited, not extend past publication of termination notice on February 5, 2025. | Relief cut off at Feb 5, 2025, the date of notice publication; later documentation not protected. |
Key Cases Cited
- DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1 (2020) (agency’s failure to address reliance interests in rescinding DACA was arbitrary and capricious)
- Ramos v. Nielsen, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (plaintiffs have arguable property interests in TPS status)
- Saget v. Trump, 375 F. Supp. 3d 280 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (liberty interests associated with TPS are vital for rule of law)
- Nasor v. USCIS, 685 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (W.D. Wash. 2023) (prima facie eligible TPS applicant has property interest in employment authorization)