Click on the headings to view respective documents.
Nine TPS holders and 5 US citizen children of TPS holders filed a suit against the Secretary of Homeland Security challenging the terminations of Temporary Protected States, a form of humanitarian immigration relief, for four countries: Sudan, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Haiti. The Trump Administration’s recent decisions to terminate TPS—a form of humanitarian immigration relief—for El Salvador, Haiti, Sudan and Nicaragua threaten to deprive hundreds of thousands of immigrants of legal status. The case alleges that the Administration violated the constitutional rights of TPS holders and their children. The case further alleges that the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act. More about the claims brought by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs’ stories, is available here. The plaintiffs are represented by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Sidley Austin.
The U.S. government sought to dismiss, or throw out, the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs responded to the government’s arguments, contending that the Court had jurisdiction to hear this case, and the TPS holders and the U.S. citizen child plaintiffs had stated valid claims. As the plaintiffs wrote in opposing the government’s motion, “In [the government’s] view, even if Government officials flipped a coin to determine whether to end TPS—or wrote explicitly … that they were ending TPS because they did not want ‘people from shithole countries’ (and their children) living here—the federal courts could do nothing. Defendants’ view is not the law.”
The U.S. government replied to the arguments presented by the plaintiffs in opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss.
Federal District Judge Edward Chen rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the case. In his decision, Judge Chen held that “Plaintiffs have plausibly pled that President Trump made statements which a reasonable observer could construe as evidence of racial bias animus against non-white immigrants, and that he thereafter influenced and tainted DHS’s decision-making process with regard to TPS.”
TPS holders from four countries made the first ever attempt to enjoin—or stop—terminations of TPS. The plaintiffs moved to enjoin the terminations that are scheduled to go forward as soon as November 2 (for Sudan), followed by planned TPS terminations for Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador. The plaintiffs argued, with voluminous evidence, that the terminations violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Among the evidence Plaintiffs presented with their motion was a declaration from a former USCIS Director describing the standard practice of TPS determinations and documentation of the Trump Administration’s decisionmaking process with regard to TPS—showing grave deviations from standard practice, manufactured outcomes that do not correspond to the evidence, and significant interference from the White House. (See some of the documents Plaintiffs uncovered here.) Plaintiffs also presented testimony about the harm that they face if TPS is terminated.
Supporting Documents for the Preliminary Injunction Motion
Exhibits [for some of the most outrageous government documents disclosed, click here].
Amicus Briefs in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion