Challenges to TPS terminations | CLINIC

Challenges to TPS terminations

Home » Resources by Issue » Challenges to TPS terminations
Jennifer Riddle

Updated: 11/01/2018

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for nationals of Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Nepal, and Honduras. In the wake of these termination decisions, several different cases have been filed in U.S district courts. The basis of most challenges is that the decisions stemmed from racial discrimination, violated required Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Administrative Procedures Act (APA) procedures, and infringed on the Constitutional rights of TPS beneficiaries. In addition, one lawsuit has been filed seeking to expand the rights of certain TPS beneficiaries to adjust to lawful permanent residence status in the United States despite having initially entered without inspection. A brief summary of each case follows.


NAACP v. DHS – On January 24, 2018, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sued DHS in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The Plaintiffs allege that the November 2017 decision to rescind TPS for Haiti was intended to discriminate against Haitian immigrants because of race and/or ethnicity in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. According to the complaint, DHS failed to undertake a careful review of the conditions in Haiti (including severe problems related to housing, food security, infrastructure, public health, access to health care, and gender-based violence) following the 2010 earthquake that warranted Haiti’s original TPS designation and subsequent extensions. The complaint cites various examples of the current Administration’s overt bias against immigrants of color, and Haitians in particular. On April 17, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint; Haitian Women for Haitian Refugees and the Haitian Lawyers’ Association joined in the suit. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants from implementing the TPS termination decision.


Centro Presente v. Trump – On February 22, 2018, eight TPS recipients from El Salvador and Haiti and a nonprofit organization with TPS members filed a lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump and DHS in the U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts. According to the Plaintiffs, the Administration’s decisions to terminate TPS for El Salvador and Haiti constitute intentional discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and/or national origin in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The complaint alleges that the stated reasons behind the termination decisions were “pretext for invidious discrimination and belied by well-established facts.” In May, the lawsuit was amended to include Honduran TPS holders as well. Plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing DHS from implementing or enforcing the termination decisions.  On July 23, 2018, the court denied the government’s request to dismiss the lawsuit and to dismiss President Trump as a defendant, holding that the government had neither proven that its decision will survive review under the APA arbitrary and capricious standard nor that the policy change was not motivated by discriminatory purposes.


Ramos et al v. Nielsen – On March 12, 2018, nine TPS recipients and five U.S. citizen children of TPS holders filed a class action lawsuit against DHS in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. According to the Plaintiffs, DHS adopted a narrower interpretation of the federal law governing TPS, and used that interpretation to terminate TPS status for nationals of El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ new statutory interpretation forces the U.S. citizen children of TPS holders to choose between leaving the country or living without their parents in violation of the Due Process Clause, specifically the absolute right of citizens to reside in this country. According to the complaint, the termination actions also violate the Equal Protection guarantee because they were motivated by intentional discrimination based on race, ethnicity or national origin against individuals from places President Trump has referred to as “sh*thole countries.” The lawsuit also claims that the interpretation of the TPS statute was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the APA “because it represented a sudden and unexplained departure from decades of decision-making practices and ordinary procedures.” Plaintiffs sought to enjoin DHS from implementing or enforcing the TPS termination decisions or, alternatively, from rescinding the immigration status of TPS holders with school-aged U.S. citizen children. (Note that this lawsuit is the only one to challenge the TPS terminations on behalf of the U.S. citizen children of TPS holders). On October 3, 2018, Judge Edward Chen issued a preliminary injunction preventing DHS from implementing TPS terminations for El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan while the case is resolved on its merits. DHS published its plan for compliance with the injunction in the Federal Register on October 31, 2018. The government has appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


Saget v. Trump – On March 15, 2018, weekly newspaper Haïti Liberté, the Family Action Network Movement, Inc., and ten Haitian TPS beneficiaries filed a lawsuit against President Trump, DHS, and DHS officials in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York. According to the complaint, the decision to terminate TPS for Haiti was an arbitrary and capricious action undertaken without statutory authority and without the procedures required by the APA. The complaint alleges that the administration failed to follow the required notice-and-comment procedures and that its actions are ultra vires of the INA. It further alleges that the termination decision violates the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Finally, Plaintiffs claim the decision violates the due process rights of Haitian TPS holders and denies them equal protection under the laws. To substantiate its claims of underlying racial animus, the complaint references a number of discriminatory statements made by President Trump, including that Haitians “all have AIDS” and “[w]hy would we want any more Haitians?” Plaintiffs ask that the Haiti termination decision be reversed and that Defendants be enjoined from removing Haitian TPS holders from the United States. There has been no hearing set; briefing has been extended to September 21.


Casa De Maryland, Inc. v. Trump – TPS recipients from El Salvador and CASA de Maryland challenge the DHS’ termination of TPS for El Salvador, alleging violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, the INA and the APA. This suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on March 23, 2018 and seeks injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs argue that the decision to end TPS for El Salvador was based not on a change in conditions in El Salvador, but rather on discrimination toward Latino immigrants on the basis of race, ethnicity, and/or national origin based on President Trump’s comments. The administration moved to dismiss this suit in June and a hearing on this motion was held on September 12, 2018. 


Moreno v. Nielsen – On February 22, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by three TPS beneficiaries, as well as the American Immigration Council and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. The Plaintiffs challenge the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and DHS policy of depriving certain TPS holders who entered the U.S. without inspection from adjusting status in the United States under INA § 245(a). The complaint (amended on March 26) asks the court to declare that this policy is unlawful and to order DHS to grant adjustment applications of TPS recipients residing in the jurisdictions of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal who have been inspected and admitted by virtue of their TPS grants and are otherwise eligible for 245(a) adjustment.  No hearing date is set.