Table of Contents
Court Halts Government’s Effort to End Temporary Protected Status for Haitians
On Monday, February 2nd, Judge Ana Reyes from the US District Court of Colombia (Washington, DC) issued what can only be described as a blistering decision describing the Trump Administration’s decision to terminate TPS for Haitians as poorly reasoned, contrary to the facts and riddled with racial animus. Judge Reyes rebuked the government throughout her 83-page decision and paused the termination of the TPS for Haitians, which was scheduled to expire on February 3rd. Her decision targeted the process through which the US Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem issued the termination notice and remarks that Secretary Noem failed to observe the requirements outlined by Congress in issuing the termination notice in November 2025. In issuing this termination notice, Secretary Noem cited to “improved” country conditions in Haiti and the “national interest” of the United States, which would effectively render turn 300,000+ lawful Haitian TPS holders into illegal aliens overnight.
In its decision, the Court repeatedly criticizes DHS for rendering its decision in blatant disregard for the facts in the court record. The Court does not question DHS’ ability to terminate TPS, but asserts that the process in which it has done so was blatantly unlawful. For example, the statute requires that a TPS can only be terminated “after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government”, which would normally include communication with the US Embassy of the designated country, a series of fact-finding memorandums and other considerations. In this matter, the government’s “consultation” constituted of a two-sentence email correspondence between Homeland Security and the State Department and nothing else. This “consultation” was compared against an exhaustive record that establishes that Haiti is in the midst of crisis with the Court citing the Department of State’s own Level 4 Travel Warning against any travel to Haiti. The Court notes that DHS’ termination clearly fails to have any factual support showing that the country conditions within Haiti make it safe for its citizens to return.
The Court also chides DHS for asserting that the return of Haitians would be in the “national interest” of the United States. DHS’ support of its “national interest” argument is, at times, laughable arguing that TPS holders may have criminal records or are difficult to locate and monitor. These arguments are nonsensical, as TPS is unavailable to any individuals that have serious criminal convictions and requires that individuals re-register at least every 18 months, which subjects registrants to background checks and updated address requirements. The Department appears to try to bluster its way through this argument, but simply repeating the that termination of TPS is in the “national interest” without any genuine backing for what and how it came to such a conclusion. The Court cites to data in the administrative record that show nearly 95% of Haitian TPS holders are employed with almost 14% being self-employed entrepreneurs. The rendering of this population as immediately unemployable and out of status is hardly, in the Court’s opinion, in the “national interest.”
Perhaps the most damning part of the decision is the Court’s focus on the language used by President Trump and Secretary Noem in describing Haitians. While the President’s willingness to use vulgar and cruel language in describing Haitians is well-documented and does not bear repeating, the Court cites to Secretary Noem’s description of Haitians as “leeches”, “entitlement junkies” and “foreign invaders” as evidence of a pretext to terminate TPS, regardless of whether the facts support such a decision or not. In short – words do matter.
The Court is clear in noting that the Secretary has authority to issue the termination, but it can only be considered lawful when the process taken supports such a conclusion. In the Court’s opinion, the process (or lack thereof) to terminate TPS by DHS was unlawful. In concluding its decision, the Court’s outlook on the government’s position was biting and a reader can get a sense as to the Court’s overall position from these two paragraphs alone:
VII. CONCLUSION
There is an old adage among lawyers. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table.
Secretary Noem, the record to-date shows, does not have the facts on her side—or at least has ignored them. Does not have the law on her side—or at least has ignored it. Having neither and bringing the adage into the 21st century, she pounds X (f/k/a Twitter).
Kristi Noem has a First Amendment right to call immigrants killers, leeches, entitlement junkies, and any other inapt name she wants. Secretary Noem, however, is constrained by both our Constitution and the APA to apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program. The record to-date shows she has yet to do that.
