Ninth Circuit Backs DHS and Restores Some Temporary Protected Status

(UNITED STATES) — A Ninth Circuit stay has reinstated DHS terminations of Temporary Protected Status for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua, meaning TPS protections and related work authorization are not in effect while the National TPS Alliance v. Noem case proceeds on appeal.

What you’ll need before you act

• Your current immigration documents (EAD card, I-94, approval notices, receipt notices).
• Any proof of another lawful basis to work or stay (for example, an asylum-related receipt and EAD category, DACA documents, or an adjustment filing and related EAD).
• Your employer’s Form I-9 records contact (HR or compliance), if you are working.
• A plan to check official updates on USCIS TPS pages and key court dockets.

1) Overview: what the Ninth Circuit stay does right now

On February 9, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an appellate stay in National TPS Alliance v. Noem (also called NTPSA II). A stay is a court order that pauses the effect of a lower court ruling while an appeal continues.

For TPS holders, the practical result is immediate. The stay pauses the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s district court vacatur that had blocked DHS from ending TPS for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. DHS’s termination posture is restored during the appeal.

Expect the legal posture to shift again. A stay is not a final merits decision.

Table 1 — Affected TPS designations and immediate effects

2) Background and legal context: how the case got here

December 31, 2025 marked the key district court step. The Northern District of California vacated DHS terminations of Temporary Protected Status for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua, and it accepted claims tied to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) plus Fifth Amendment allegations.

DHS asked the Ninth Circuit for emergency relief. The government argued it was likely to succeed on appeal, including by challenging jurisdiction under the TPS statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a, and by disputing the APA and constitutional theories. The Ninth Circuit stay granted that request and put the district court’s order on hold while the appeal continues.

APA review often turns on whether an agency decision was “arbitrary” or “capricious,” or failed to follow required reasoning. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a, DHS has statutory authority to designate, extend, and terminate TPS. Courts then assess whether DHS acted within that authority and complied with the APA’s standards.

Different TPS designations can sit in different procedural tracks at the same time. Haiti and Venezuela are frequently discussed alongside NTPSA II, but they are not the same court posture. Keep them separate.

3) Immediate effects on TPS holders and TPS-based EAD validity

Loss of TPS protection is the first operational change. During the stay, TPS-based protection tied to the Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua designations is not in effect. In many cases, that means you no longer have TPS as a defense against removal based on that designation alone.

Work authorization changes at the same time. TPS-based EADs tied solely to TPS for Honduras, Nepal, or Nicaragua are treated as not valid during the stay. USCIS has updated its TPS webpages for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua to reflect that posture.

Over 60,000 TPS holders are affected by the combined impact estimate cited in the litigation. Individual consequences vary, since some TPS holders also have another lawful basis to remain or work.

Haiti and Venezuela require extra care in conversation. Haiti’s TPS posture has been addressed in separate district court activity, and Venezuela-related litigation has raised distinct questions about DHS authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a. Those tracks do not change the stay’s effect on Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua.

4) What TPS beneficiaries should do now (Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua)

Start by separating TPS from everything else you may have filed. Many people with TPS also have pending or approved applications that can support lawful presence, a separate protection claim, or separate work authorization.

Use this step-by-step check:

1. Confirm whether your work authorization is TPS-based. Look at your EAD category and approval notices. If your ability to work depends only on TPS for Honduras, Nepal, or Nicaragua, the stay means that TPS-based work authorization is not available during the appeal.
2. Check for a second, independent basis to work or stay. Common examples include an asylum-related EAD category, DACA, an adjustment-related EAD, or a valid nonimmigrant status with work authorization. Some people have more than one category. Details matter.
3. Prepare for an I-9 conversation if you are employed. Employers must maintain Form I-9 verification. If your prior documents were TPS-based, you may need to present other valid documents that meet I-9 rules. In many cases, HR will ask for updated documentation.
4. Consider enforcement exposure realistically. Without TPS-based protection, risk of removal proceedings can rise, especially if no other lawful status applies. Outcomes vary by facts, location, and DHS priorities.
5. Track USCIS updates frequently. USCIS implementation can change quickly during active appellate litigation. Monitor USCIS and your online case tools at my.uscis.gov if you have pending filings.

✅ If you are a TPS holder for Honduras, Nepal, or Nicaragua, assess other authorized statuses and consult employer I-9 guidelines; monitor USCIS TPS pages and court updates for changes

5) What employers should do: I-9 compliance under fast-changing rules

Employers face a narrow problem with a wide operational footprint. The Ninth Circuit stay means some workers’ TPS-based documentation may no longer support continued employment authorization for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua.

A practical employer workflow often includes:

1. Identify roles potentially affected without targeting by nationality. Use neutral, compliance-based triggers tied to document expiration or reverification rules. Avoid selective checks that can create discrimination risk.
2. Follow standard I-9 rules on acceptable documents. Employers must accept any valid document or combination of documents that satisfies Form I-9 requirements. Do not demand a specific document from a specific worker.
3. Handle reverification consistently. If reverification is required, apply the same process across similarly situated employees. Recordkeeping should follow standard retention requirements.
4. Expect volatility. En banc review at the Ninth Circuit, or an emergency filing at the Supreme Court, can shift effective rules quickly. Employer policies should be ready to adjust on short notice.

USCIS may revise TPS web guidance again as the appeal develops. Assign someone internally to check updates routinely.

6) Next steps in the case and what to watch

Merits briefing and a merits decision come next at the Ninth Circuit. A stay is temporary. It keeps DHS’s terminations in place during the appeal, but it does not decide the final legality of the terminations.

Several procedural paths remain possible:

1. A Ninth Circuit merits decision affirming or reversing the district court.
2. En banc proceedings if the full Ninth Circuit agrees to rehear the case.
3. Supreme Court involvement, including emergency applications about stays, or later review of a final judgment.

Monitoring needs to be practical:

• Check USCIS TPS country pages on uscis.gov for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua wording changes.
• Watch docket activity for National TPS Alliance v. Noem in federal courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Northern District of California.
• Employers should also watch for updated compliance-facing guidance tied to I-9 verification.

⚠️ This is an interim stay pending full merits review; outcomes are uncertain and may change with en banc or Supreme Court action

This article reflects ongoing litigation and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult an attorney for individual guidance.

YMYL compliance: statements about rights, removal proceedings, or work authorization require careful, qualified language.