Court halts DHS plan to end TPS protections for Haitians
Federal judge enjoins DHS order, preserving work permits and deportation protection for roughly 350,000 Haitian TPS holders.

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s effort to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haitian nationals, pausing a move that would have stripped work authorization and deportation protection from hundreds of thousands of people living in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes of Washington, D.C., granted a request to stay the Department of Homeland Security’s termination order in an 83-page opinion, denying the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and preserving TPS for Haitian recipients “pending judicial review.” The administration had set the termination to take effect on Feb. 3; news reports said the injunction was issued late on Monday, just before that deadline. TPS provides beneficiaries with work authorization and protection from deportation.
Judge Reyes concluded the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed on the merits” and found that Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s decision appeared to have been preordained. The opinion invoked Noem’s public language about immigrants, quoting a statement the judge said Noem made three days after announcing the end of Haitian protections: “Every damn country that has been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.” The judge said those remarks were relevant to assessing motive and compliance with statutory procedure.
Reyes faulted the secretary for failing to apply a reasoned analysis to U.S. residents who already hold TPS. The opinion observed that Noem’s reasoning “focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here illegally, ignoring that Haitian T.P.S. holders already live here, and legally so,” and said her analysis “ignores altogether the billions Haitian T.P.S. holders contribute to the economy.” The court added that the government “does not cite any reason termination must occur post haste” and emphasized statutory guardrails: “The statutory design is straightforward: TPS exists because threats to life exist; when the threat persists, so should TPS protection, unless the Secretary articulates a well‑reasoned and well‑supported national interest to the contrary.”
Reports of the population affected vary. Many outlets described the group as roughly 350,000 people; ABC News cited a specific figure of 352,959 lawful immigrants. The judge listed five plaintiffs by name in the opinion and rejected the slurs used by the secretary, writing that “They are not, it emerges, ‘killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies.’”

The decision has immediate human and community consequences. Faith leaders and Haitian community members gathered to pray at St. John Missionary Baptist Church in Springfield, Ohio, where Rose-Thamar Joseph, operations director of the Haitian Support Center, said, “We can breathe for a little bit.” Lynn Tramonte, executive director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, called the court’s action an “11th-hour reprieve” and warned that people cannot keep “pegging their families' futures to a court case.”
Beyond the individual relief the order provides, the ruling raises broader public health and economic questions. TPS holders work in health care, long-term care, construction, and other sectors critical to local services and community resilience. The judge noted the required interagency consultations on country conditions and criticized the administration for failing to meet procedural obligations in its review.
The Haitian case joins parallel litigation: a separate federal judge in San Francisco, Ed Chen, temporarily blocked a termination attempt affecting Venezuelan TPS holders in a 78-page ruling that also cited harms to communities and the economy. In both matters, courts will now weigh whether termination determinations were lawful, arbitrary, or motivated by improper considerations.
The stay keeps Haitian TPS in effect “until the case is fully litigated,” but the ruling is temporary and likely to prompt appeals. The immediate legal and administrative path forward remains unsettled, leaving families and employers dependent on a court timetable for final resolution.
Know something we missed? Have a correction or additional information?
Submit a Tip
