Appeals Court Rules Noem Illegally Ended Venezuelan TPS
Appeals court finds DHS Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority in ending Venezuelan TPS, though the Supreme Court allowed the termination to take effect in Oct. 2025.

Federal court rules Noem terminating temporary protected status for Venezuelans in US was illegal

US appeals court says Noem’s decision to end protections for Venezuelans in US was illegal
Noem ending protected status for Venezuelans in U.S. was illegal, federal appeals court rules
Appeals Court: Noem Illegally Ended Venezuelan Protections
Overview
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 28, 2026 ruled that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority when she ended temporary protected status for Venezuelan nationals, according to court documents.
A three-judge panel of Judges Kim Wardlaw, Salvador Mendoza Jr. and Anthony Johnstone upheld a lower court finding that the TPS statute does not permit a secretary to vacate an existing designation, the opinion said.
Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote that Noem's "unlawful actions have had real and significant consequences," and Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. wrote there was "ample evidence of racial and national origin animus," while attorneys for the government argued the secretary has broad authority and denied motive allegations, according to the appellate opinion and court filings.
Noem's termination resulted in 268,156 Venezuelan nationals losing TPS, the TPS designation expired on Sept. 10, 2025 and the Federal Register set the termination effective date as Nov. 7, 2025, while about 353,000 Haitian nationals face expiration on Feb. 3, 2026 and 3,738 initial and 102,935 renewal applications were terminated, records show.
The ruling does not immediately restore protections because the U.S. Supreme Court in Oct. 2025 allowed Noem's termination to take effect pending final review, and a federal judge in Washington is expected to rule soon on a request to pause Haiti's termination, court filings show.
Analysis
Center-leaning sources are largely neutral: they foreground the court's ruling and judicial quotes while also reporting the administration's rationale and contextual background on conditions in Venezuela and Haiti. Editorial language is minimized; strong claims are attributed to judges or lawyers rather than presented as reporters' assertions, which limits cumulative framing.