Federal Court Declares Illegal the Termination of Venezuelan Migrant Protections
Washington, 30 January 2026
A US federal appeals court ruled that ending legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants was unlawful, marking a significant judicial blow to current immigration policy. The Ninth Circuit determined that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority in terminating Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans and Haitians.
Building on Broader Immigration Policy Challenges
This latest ruling continues the pattern of judicial challenges to the current administration’s immigration policies, following similar legal battles documented in recent cases. The Venezuelan decision emerged just days after over 5,000 Ethiopians faced deportation when the Trump administration terminated their Temporary Protected Status on 13th February 2026. The Ethiopian case highlighted how immigrant rights advocates have consistently argued that these terminations stem from racial discrimination rather than objective assessments of home country conditions [GPT]. On Wednesday, 28th January 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered its verdict, with a three-judge panel ruling that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had acted beyond her legal authority [1][2]. The decision specifically addressed both Venezuelan and Haitian protections, finding that the terminations violated established procedural safeguards designed to ensure stability for TPS beneficiaries during extraordinary conditions in their home countries [2].
Court Findings Point to Discriminatory Motivations
The appellate judges delivered particularly scathing assessments of the administration’s motivations behind the TPS terminations. Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. wrote that the evidence revealed ‘broad evidence of racial and national origin animosity’ that reinforced lower court conclusions about predetermined decisions [2]. The ruling stated that ‘it is clear that the Secretary’s vacatur actions were not actually grounded in substantive policy considerations or genuine differences with respect to the prior administration’s TPS procedures, but were instead rooted in a stereotype-based diagnosis of immigrants from Venezuela and Haiti as dangerous criminals or mentally unwell’ [1][2]. Judge Kim Wardlaw emphasised the human cost of these decisions, noting that case files contained numerous examples of ‘working and tax-paying members of society - who are mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and partners of US citizens, pay taxes and have no criminal record - who have been deported or detained after losing their TPS’ [2]. The Department of Homeland Security responded by calling the ruling a ‘lawless and activist order from the federal judiciary’ and claiming that federal judges continue to ‘undermine our immigration laws’ [1].
Immediate Impact Limited Despite Legal Victory
Despite the favourable ruling, Venezuelan and Haitian TPS holders face continued uncertainty due to previous Supreme Court intervention. In October 2025, the US Supreme Court allowed Noem’s termination decision to take effect pending final resolution of the case [1][2]. This means that currently, Venezuelans are not protected by TPS whilst litigation continues [3]. Immigration attorney John R. De la Vega explained that whilst the Ninth Circuit determined the government’s attempt to eliminate TPS was ‘arbitrary and capricious’, this does not automatically reactivate TPS protections [3]. The government retains the right to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court within 90 days, potentially extending the legal process for several more months [3]. For Haitian TPS holders, the situation remains particularly urgent, as their protections were scheduled to end on 3rd February 2026, with a federal judge in Washington expected to rule on a request to pause the termination [1][2].
Broader Context of Immigration Enforcement Escalation
The TPS ruling comes amid dramatically intensified immigration enforcement operations across the United States. In Minnesota, federal operations have resulted in significant casualties, with ICE agents killing six people since the start of Trump’s second term, including Renée Nicole Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti, who was shot ten times on 24th January 2026 [4]. These incidents triggered massive resistance, culminating in a general strike on 23rd January 2026 that saw between 50,000 and 100,000 people participate in protests despite extreme cold weather of -22°C [4]. A federal judge in Minnesota responded to the escalating situation by blocking arrests of refugees on Wednesday, 29th January 2026, ordering the immediate release of those detained under ‘Operation PARRIS’, which targets approximately 5,600 refugees awaiting permanent residency status [5]. Judge John Tunheim ruled that whilst the administration could continue reviewing refugee situations, it must do so ‘without arresting or detaining refugees’, emphasising that ‘refugees have the legal right to be in the United States, the right to work, the right to live in peace’ [5]. The administration’s immigration budget reflects the scale of these operations, with ICE funding expanding from $10 billion in 2024 to a current allocation of $75 billion over four years, representing a substantial increase in enforcement capabilities [4].