[Not that it seems to matter,](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171.10.1_2.pdf) [as we are operating like a lawless country](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171.10.1_2.pdf). But this ruling seems like a significant check on the immigration timeline. Which should not be surprising in normal times. 

The panel upheld the lower court’s finding that Secretary Noem exceeded her statutory authority in terminating the Biden-era TPS designations for Venezuelan nationals.

Some interesting points: 

TPS **termination** isn’t discretionary in the way initial **designation** is. The INA prescribes specific findings the Secretary must make, that conditions in the foreign state no longer warrant protection. And the courts appear to be holding DHS to that statutory framework rather than treating termination as a pure policy call.

Also re APA procedures: even if the administration has substantive authority to end TPS, the procedural requirements should matter. The ruling likely turns at least in part on whether DHS followed notice-and-comment requirements and provided adequate justification under arbitrary-and-capricious review.

Also post *DHS v. Regents* (DACA case), courts are more attuned to the **reliance interests** of beneficiaries when agencies reverse course on programs people have built lives around. That framewoek has weight here. 

SCOTUS emergency stay app in 3… 2… 1…

Onto SCOTUS? 9th Circuit Appeals Affirms District Court on Noem Venezuelan TPS Termination