A federal judge on Monday blocked the administration of Donald Trump from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians, a program that allows roughly 350,000 people to live and work legally in the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security’s assistant secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, said Monday the White House plans to appeal, calling the ruling “lawless activism” and arguing the administration will ultimately prevail.
In a brief two-page order, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes declared the TPS termination “null, void, and of no legal effect” while the stay remains in place. That means Haitian TPS holders keep their work authorization and protection from detention and deportation for now.
Why it matters
The ruling is a notable legal setback for the administration’s broader immigration enforcement push, temporarily shielding hundreds of thousands of Haitians from removal to a country facing severe instability and violence.
The case also lands amid heightened political attention on Haitian migration after Springfield became a national flashpoint during the 2024 campaign, when false rumors about Haitian migrants were amplified after being repeated by Trump in a debate with then–Vice President Kamala Harris. The controversy was followed by multiple bomb threats against local schools and health care facilities, even as city officials pointed to Haitian arrivals as a major driver of population growth in recent years.
What TPS is
Congress created TPS in the Immigration Act of 1990, authorizing the federal government to grant temporary legal status to people from countries experiencing civil conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions that make return unsafe.
In moving to end protections, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem argued that conditions in Haiti (and Venezuela) had improved and that extending TPS was not in the national interest.
What the judge said
Reyes granted the request to pause the termination one day before protections were set to expire. In her ruling, she indicated the plaintiffs were likely to succeed and found it “substantially likely” the decision was driven by “hostility to nonwhite immigrants.”
Background on Haiti’s designation
Haiti’s TPS designation was first activated in 2010 after a catastrophic earthquake and has been renewed repeatedly since then. The country has faced escalating turmoil, including widespread gang violence and mass displacement. Armed groups now control large parts of Port-au-Prince, with kidnappings, extortion, and deadly clashes worsening insecurity.
The 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moïse deepened the crisis, contributing to a continuing power vacuum amid shortages, a weakened health-care system, and broader humanitarian strain.
The legal fight
The administration has sought to roll back TPS as part of a larger effort to expand the pool of people eligible for deportation. Beyond Haiti, the government has also moved to terminate protections for large groups from Venezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, Ukraine, and other countries—several of which are being challenged in court.
Plaintiffs argue the Haiti termination was motivated by racial animus and that DHS failed to properly weigh whether ongoing armed conflict poses serious risks to personal safety, as required by law. DHS says conditions have improved and points to the deployment of an international security force aimed at confronting gangs.
What people are saying
- Reyes wrote that, during the stay, the termination “shall be null, void, and of no legal effect.”
- McLaughlin said: “Supreme Court, here we come,” arguing TPS was never meant to function as long-term, de facto amnesty and insisting “temporary means temporary.”
- FWD.us President Todd Schulte warned that ending TPS would force Haitian families into an “impossible position” and urged the administration not to appeal.
- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, representing TPS clients, called the stay a major win for Haitian TPS holders, citing ongoing violence and humanitarian danger in Haiti and saying it is prepared to continue defending clients if the government appeals.
What happens next
The lawsuit will continue in federal court. Reyes is expected to issue a longer accompanying opinion laying out her reasoning in more detail, while the administration moves forward with its appeal.
