Judge blocks Trump administration from ending protections for Haitians

A federal judge has temporarily halted the Trump administration’s plan to end protections for approximately 350,000 Haitians living and working in the United States, delivering a significant setback to the White House’s immigration agenda.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington granted an injunction on Monday to pause the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian nationals while a lawsuit challenging the decision proceeds through the courts. The TPS designation for Haitians was set to expire on February 3.

In her 83-page opinion, Judge Reyes wrote that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their case, adding that she found it “substantially likely” that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision was predetermined due to “hostility to nonwhite immigrants.”

“During the stay, the Termination shall be null, void, and of no legal effect,” Judge Reyes stated in her two-page order. The ruling ensures that Haitian TPS holders can continue working legally in the U.S. and remain protected from detention and deportation while the case progresses.

TPS is a humanitarian program that allows the Homeland Security Secretary to grant temporary legal status to immigrants from countries experiencing extraordinary circumstances such as natural disasters, armed conflict, or other dangerous conditions. While the program provides work authorization and protection from deportation, it does not offer a pathway to permanent residency or citizenship.

Haiti’s TPS designation was initially granted in 2010 following a devastating earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people and displaced approximately 1.5 million. The status has been extended multiple times due to subsequent disasters and ongoing instability.

The ruling comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to curtail humanitarian immigration programs. Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, the Department of Homeland Security has moved to end TPS protections for several countries, affecting approximately 600,000 Venezuelans, 60,000 people from Honduras, Nicaragua and Nepal, more than 160,000 Ukrainians, and thousands from Afghanistan and Cameroon.

Attorneys representing Haitian TPS holders argued that terminating the program would have deadly consequences. “If the termination stands, people will almost certainly die,” they wrote in a December court filing. “Some will likely be killed, others will likely die from disease, and yet others will likely starve to death.”

The legal challenge contends that the decision to end Haiti’s protected status was motivated by racial discrimination and failed to properly consider the country’s dangerous conditions as required by law. Haiti continues to face severe security challenges, with gang violence displacing hundreds of thousands of people and creating what the United Nations has described as a humanitarian crisis.

The Department of Homeland Security defended its decision, claiming conditions in Haiti had improved. Government attorneys argued in court filings that allegations of racial animus were based on statements “taken out of context, often from other speakers and from years ago, and without direct links to the Secretary’s determinations.”

In November, the government notice announcing the termination cited “positive developments” in Haiti, including authorization of a new multinational security force to combat gang violence. Secretary Noem determined that allowing Haitians to remain in the U.S. was “against the national interest,” according to the notice.

The court’s decision represents one of several legal challenges to the administration’s immigration policies. Similar lawsuits regarding TPS terminations for other countries remain pending in federal courts across the country, creating uncertainty for hundreds of thousands of long-term residents who have built lives, businesses, and families in the United States.

For the Haitian community in the U.S., many of whom have lived here for more than a decade, the ruling provides temporary relief while highlighting the precarious nature of humanitarian immigration protections that remain subject to political shifts.