On February 9, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant ruling, granting a stay that permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to proceed with terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants from Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua. This decision follows a district court’s earlier ruling in December 2025 that was vacated by Judge Trina Thompson. The Ninth Circuit found that the government’s chances of success in its appeals are strong and that the terminations are neither arbitrary nor capricious.
The ruling is poised to impact up to 90,000 long-term residents who rely on this program. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision, branding it a win for the Trump administration’s broader deportation strategy. She took to social media to declare, “This is a crucial legal win from @TheJusticeDept attorneys that helps clear the way for President Trump’s continued deportations.” Bondi emphasized that the ruling reaffirmed the notion that the government is likely to prevail in its argument for terminating TPS, reinforcing a legal landscape that supports the administration’s immigration policy.
The Ninth Circuit clarified its reasoning in the decision, stating, “The government is likely to prevail in its argument that the Secretary’s decision-making process in terminating TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal was not arbitrary and capricious.” This statement underlines the court’s belief in the government’s justification for these terminations, asserting that the Secretary’s actions are backed by substantial records and that the law does not necessitate consideration of changing conditions in these countries post-designation.
One conservative commentator responded to the ruling by declaring, “Huge WIN for rule of law! Ninth Circuit sides with Trump DHS—stays lower court block on ending TPS for Nicaragua, Nepal, Honduras. Govt likely wins on merits: Secretary Noem’s terminations lawful, supported by record, no need to chase ‘intervening conditions’ forever.” Such sentiments reflect a prevailing belief among conservative voices that the court’s decision emphasizes the rule of law and compliance with established immigration statutes.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem highlighted the ruling as a legal validation and a pivotal moment for the Constitution. She pointed out that under previous administrations, TPS had been misused, allowing entry to individuals she described as “violent terrorists, criminals, and national security threats.” Noem commented, “TPS was never designed to be permanent, yet previous administrations have used it as a de facto amnesty program for decades.” Her remarks underscore a critical view of the policies that have extended TPS beyond its intended purpose, asserting the need for a return to its original framework.
In an official post, the DHS reiterated the temporary nature of TPS: “Temporary Protected Status was designed to be just that—TEMPORARY. Haiti’s TPS was granted following an earthquake that took place over 15 years ago.” This position frames the administration’s actions as efforts to restore integrity to the immigration system, positioning the extension of TPS as contrary to its original intent.
As the ruling resonates through the political landscape, it raises questions about the balance between humanitarian considerations and adherence to immigration laws. The court’s decision contributes to a continuing debate regarding the efficacy and morality of TPS as a program, especially given its past applications. Furthermore, it signals a shift back toward stricter immigration control measures, aligning with the Trump administration’s narrative of prioritizing national security and legal immigration standards over what they term as “permanent residency backdoor” policies.
Overall, this ruling marks a substantial development in the ongoing immigration discourse. It reflects the complexities faced by policymakers as they navigate the intersections of law, public sentiment, and the realities on the ground in countries affected by TPS. The Ninth Circuit’s backing of the DHS asserts a legal framework that, according to the administration, safeguards the integrity of U.S. immigration policy while asserting that appropriate measures are being taken in light of changing conditions in the designated countries.
"*" indicates required fields
