TPS revocation continues to be halted in district courts

More than a year after entering office, the Trump administration has faced continued lawsuits and injunctions for nearly every action it pursues, and the revocation of TPS for various countries has been no different.

U.S. District Judge Patti Saris, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, struck down the administration’s attempt to end TPS for South Sudan on Thursday, finding that the reason provided was unlawfully “pretextual.”

One of the most high profile recent rejections of TPS revocation came from U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, who halted efforts to end TPS for Haiti earlier this month. In her lengthy ruling, Reyes said that both President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem showed what she saw as racial animus against Haitians. Reyes wrote that the decision to revoke the country’s status was therefore unlawfully pretextual.

“Taken together, the record strongly suggests that Secretary Noem’s decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation was motivated, at least in part, by racial animus,” she wrote. “The mismatch between what the Secretary said in the Termination and what the evidence shows confirms that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was not the product of reasoned decision-making, but of a preordained outcome justified by pretextual reasons.”

Reyes’s ruling caused uproar in conservative legal circles, with critics accusing her of ruling due to her personal disapproval of the policy decision instead of its legality.

While the administration has faced stumbles in the district court, it has notably notched victories in higher courts, including earlier this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeals court panel lifted a lower court’s ruling blocking the revocation of TPS for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The appeals court panel rejected the lower court’s finding that the revocation was arbitrary and capricious, finding the government was able to provide a record for why the Department of Homeland Security revoked the status.

The Supreme Court has also weighed in on its emergency docket twice, limiting a lower court’s halt of the revocation of TPS for Venezuela. The majority of the justices in both orders did not elaborate in detail on the high court’s rationale for decision, but their intervention suggests lower court judges who continue to try blocking TPS revocations are unlikely to be successful.

With the variety of rulings on TPS, several conservative legal analysts have said the Democrat-appointed judges are simply ruling against the Trump administration over policy differences, while the adverse rulings themselves allege the administration failed to follow procedure.

Unfavorable courts and procedural issues have been root of TPS revocation issues

When asked if the rulings on TPS had more to do with the administration not following proper procedure or with judges overreaching in their rulings, John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, said “it’s a little bit of both.”

Shu pointed to the administration’s attempts to end TPS for Haiti as an example of where the administration got in its own way with comments about the country and Haitian nationals, which led to a judge halting the revocation of TPS on claims of unlawful animus.

“Policies may not be based on racial or national origin animus, and plaintiffs will challenge policies in court if a policy even appears to be based on such animus, even if the policy itself is straight up correct,” Shu told the Washington Examiner. “TPS is based on national origin and so can be vulnerable to such challenges.”

He stated that it would “ideal” if the administration would “look ahead and try to minimize the likely plaintiffs’ potential arguments and maximize its chances of winning in court,” noting that they will always face pushback from left-wing groups.

“Because so much of the left-wing viscerally detests the current administration, they’ll fund and file lawsuits whenever TPS is withdrawn from anybody – Haitians, Congolese, Yemenis, Danish – it doesn’t matter,” Shu said.

“Left-wing lawfare is very well-funded, often by billionaires, and they’re ready to file lawsuits in places like Hawaii, California, Massachusetts, and other liberal jurisdictions where they know they’re almost certain to win, and they’ll take those cases all the way to the Supreme Court,” Shu added.

Every one of Trump’s attempts to revoke TPS has been met with a lawsuit, and most of them have been filed in federal judicial districts with overwhelming Democrat-appointed benches. The judges’ negative rulings in several of the cases have been more akin to political decisions than judicial rulings.

“Any president has the power to reverse a previous administration’s policy determinations and findings, especially if the facts on the ground have changed. The Immigration and Nationality Act grants the executive branch broad authority and deference,” Shu said.

“Unfortunately, a lot of district court judges personally dislike the president and his policies and rule accordingly, but they’re not supposed to do that. Instead, judges are supposed to put aside their personal feelings – either for or against – and rule based on the facts and the plain text, meaning, and original intent of the law,” he added.

‘TEMPORARY’ IN NAME ONLY: HOW TPS ALLOWS FOREIGNERS TO STAY IN THE US FOR YEARS

While the administration continues to face legal battles with ending TPS, it continues to seek the termination of the status for additional countries. The Department of Homeland Security announced Friday it would be ending TPS for Yemen, claiming the country no longer meets the standards for protection and reiterating the administration’s stance on the program.

“TPS was designed to be temporary, and this administration is returning TPS to its original temporary intent. We are prioritizing our national security interests and putting America first,” Noem said.