A federal judge has issued a significant ruling in favor of Yemeni immigrants, blocking the Trump administration’s decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Yemenis who have been in the U.S. since 2015.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by a class of around 3,200 Yemeni immigrants who sought to prevent the termination of their protected status, which would have had devastating consequences given the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Yemen.
The Lawsuit and Plaintiffs’ Arguments
The plaintiffs in the case challenged the decision by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which was headed by then-Secretary Kristi Noem. In March 2026, DHS issued a notice to terminate TPS for Yemenis, prompting the legal action.
The plaintiffs argued that the termination decision was not based on an objective review of the conditions in Yemen, as required by law. Instead, they claimed the decision was politically motivated and part of a broader agenda by the Trump administration to dismantle TPS protections.
The plaintiffs pointed out that Yemen remains embroiled in armed conflict, mass displacement, hunger, and a humanitarian emergency. The U.S. State Department had even issued a travel warning advising against traveling to Yemen “for any reason,” which further highlighted the dangerous conditions in the country.
The plaintiffs contended that terminating TPS for Yemenis would place individuals already lawfully in the U.S. at risk of returning to unsafe conditions and would block relief for those awaiting TPS approval.
Judge Ho’s Ruling
In a 36-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Dale Ho, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, effectively blocking the termination of TPS for Yemeni immigrants pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
The judge found that the Trump administration had not properly consulted with the appropriate agencies, as required by federal law, before issuing the termination notice.
Judge Ho emphasized that the law requires DHS to consult with relevant agencies about conditions in the country from which TPS beneficiaries are protected before making a decision on termination.
However, he found that the government’s consultation efforts were minimal and lacked relevance to Yemen’s specific conditions.
In particular, Ho criticized the government’s argument that it had met the consultation requirement by discussing U.S. foreign policy in an email thread that did not address the safety or conditions for Yemeni nationals.
“Absolutely no information about the relevant conditions in Yemen (i.e., armed conflict and safety of Yemeni nationals upon return) was requested by DHS, and none was provided by State,” the judge wrote. “At bottom, the Government’s view is that the Secretary can satisfy the consultation requirement by communicating about topics that have no bearing on the conditions that, under the statute, are appropriate to the Secretary’s decision whether to terminate TPS.”
The judge’s opinion suggested that the DHS’s approach was insufficient and amounted to “lip service” rather than meaningful consultation, which is essential under the statutory framework governing TPS decisions.
From the opinion, at length:
TPS holders from Yemen are not “killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.” They are ordinary, law-abiding people who have been granted status to be here because the Government has repeatedly determined, in accordance with the TPS statute, that Yemen is subject to an ongoing armed conflict, and that, due to that conflict, requiring them to return would pose a serious threat their safety. That determination is subject to periodic review and can be changed. But Congress has, by statute, established a process for such review, which the Secretary failed to adhere to here.
Implications and Broader Context
Judge Ho’s ruling highlights the government’s broader legal struggles regarding TPS. The case is part of a series of lawsuits challenging the termination of TPS for other countries, such as Haiti and Syria.
In each of these cases, courts have ruled against the government’s attempt to end TPS protections, citing failures in following proper legal procedures and the lack of adequate consultation on country conditions.
Ho’s decision also underscores the importance of maintaining TPS for individuals from countries experiencing conflict, violence, or instability.
The plaintiffs in this case presented compelling arguments that the termination of TPS would have severe consequences for Yemeni immigrants, who would face unsafe conditions if they were forced to return to Yemen.
While the court reserved judgment on other claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Fifth Amendment, the judge indicated that those claims might have also favored the plaintiffs.
His ruling reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and thorough, evidence-based decision-making when it comes to policies affecting vulnerable immigrant populations.
Looking Ahead
The case is a significant win for Yemeni immigrants and advocates for TPS, as the ruling postpones the termination of protections while the lawsuit proceeds. The decision also reflects broader legal trends in favor of upholding TPS for countries affected by violence and instability.
As the case progresses, the plaintiffs’ legal victory may have broader implications for similar cases involving TPS protections, especially as the Biden administration continues to navigate the legacy of the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
Again, the opinion, at length:
At her confirmation hearing in January 2025, then-nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem stated that TPS “has been abused and manipulated by the Biden Administration and that will no longer be allowed.” After taking office, she then proceeded to vacate various TPS designations issued during the previous Administration, and then terminated the TPS designations for every country that has come up for periodic review, including: Venezuela, Haiti, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Nicaragua, Honduras, Nepal, Syria, South Sudan, Burma (Myanmar), Somalia, Ethiopia, and Yemen.
For now, the court has ensured that Yemeni immigrants will continue to receive the protections they have relied upon since 2015, pending a final ruling.
