A federal judge has issued an indefinite halt to the Trump administration’s efforts to end temporary protected status (TPS) for thousands of Yemeni immigrants who have resided in the United States since 2015.

The case involves approximately 3,200 plaintiffs who challenged the revocation notice issued by Kristi Noem, the then-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), on March 3, 2026. The plaintiffs contend that the decision lacked an objective review of Yemen’s conditions, as mandated by law, and instead followed a “predetermined presidential agenda” to terminate TPS.

The plaintiffs argued in their 68-page original petition that Yemen is still suffering from armed conflict, severe displacement, widespread hunger, institutional breakdown, and a humanitarian crisis. This, they highlight, contradicts the State Department’s advisory against traveling to Yemen “for any reason,” while DHS sought to end TPS.

The lawsuit emphasized that stopping TPS would adversely affect thousands of Yemenis legally residing in the U.S. and deny the possibility of safety to many others who have pending TPS applications.

The plaintiffs assert that the decision to terminate TPS reflects a broader agenda from the Trump administration to end the program, regardless of the legal requirements.

Where these two concerns meet, the plaintiffs say, is a Trump administration decision to end TPS, regardless of what the law says.

“It is the latest step in Defendants’ broader project to dismantle Congressionally authorized TPS protections through predetermined, politically driven terminations untethered from the statutory inquiry Congress required,” the lawsuit continues.

Now, in a 36-page opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Dale Ho, a Joe Biden appointee, ruled for the plaintiffs, postponing the effective date of the termination notice pending final disposition of the case.

Part of the required inquiry under federal law is consultation “with appropriate agencies” before issuing a termination notice, according to the court. And such consultation, Ho notes, is precisely what Noem did not do.

To hear the government tell it, Noem and some of her staff satisfied the consultation requirement by discussing U.S. foreign policy in a single email thread that began with a request to make sure the State Department’s “consultation” was completed by December 2025.

The court rubbishes the government’s argument as lip service that, in any event, was not actually about the Yemen situation at all.

“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 opinion reads. “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.”

Summing up the relevant analysis, Ho says, “the perfunctory 1-2 sentence emails do not even address the conditions that the Secretary was required to review before making her TPS decision.”

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.

“The unfettered discretion sought by the Secretary here would vitiate this carefully established statutory scheme, and ultimately undermine the separation of powers,” the opinion continues.

The plaintiffs, in their lawsuit and motion for a preliminary injunction, also cited other claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Fifth Amendment.

The judge, in a footnote, says the lack of consultation alone means those claims do not need to be considered at this point – but hints that they would have also turned in the plaintiffs’ favor.

“While the Court reserves judgment on those claims, it notes that it finds the courts thorough and well-reasoned opinions concerning substantially similar claims in the Haiti and Syria TPS cases persuasive,” the footnote reads – referring to two other TPS lawsuits in two different federal court systems.

The judge sees a through line among various TPS cases where the government tried – and failed – to end the programs.

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.

Notably, the opinion was issued in two consolidated cases that raise similar claims. The court also directed the clerk to terminate since-moot proceedings in each of those cases in light of Friday’s order.