Emergency application

Protections for Venezuelan immigrants

Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security v. National TPS Alliance

Granted

No. 25A326Stay applicationFiled by the federal governmentPresented to Justice KaganFrom United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

What did the Court do?

The Court granted the request on October 3, 2025: the lower court's ruling is on hold while the appeal continues.

Emergency rulings are temporary and do not decide the underlying case. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would have ruled the other way.

Filed September 19, 2025Ruled October 3, 202514 days after filing

What's being asked

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the federal government ask the Supreme Court to pause part of the September 5 district court judgment. The judgment said the secretary acted unlawfully by canceling an extension of temporary protected status (TPS) and ending TPS for Venezuelans. The National TPS Alliance and individual people with TPS challenged those actions.

What the Court did

The Court put the September 5 judgment on hold (stayed it) only for Venezuela's TPS provisions, granting (approving) the federal government's emergency request. The pause covers the cancellation of Venezuela's TPS extension and the ending of that status; it does not decide who wins the case. No full vote count was published; Justices Sotomayor and Kagan would have denied (refused) the request, and Justice Jackson dissented (disagreed with the result).

Dissented
Vote not published

Dissenting · 3recorded against the Court's order: Sotomayorwould deny
Kaganwould deny
Jackson
Vote not published · 6the order does not say how they voted: Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett

The order records the positions of 3 of 9 justices. The Court usually does not say how each justice voted on an emergency application, so the rest are shown as not published.

Half of 82 rulings on applications where the Court asked for a response came 10 to 26 days after filing, and the median was 17 days; this one was ruled on 14 days after filing.

What it means

This pause is temporary and does not decide who wins the underlying case. The federal government's appeal continues in the Ninth Circuit. The record lists no related Supreme Court case to decide whether the TPS actions were lawful, and no argument date is set.

Sources

Facts on this page come from the Supreme Court docket, orders, and opinions for No. 25A326. The answers restate that record in plain words; explainer copy is written from the record and the filings only.

Checked October 4, 2026

Docket timeline

FiledSep 19, 2025
Application (25A326) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Application (PDF)Appendix (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
ResponseSep 19, 2025
Opposition to Request for Immediate Administrative Stay filed.
Response (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)Document 3 (PDF)
Response requestedSep 22, 2025
Response to application (25A326) requested by Justice Kagan, due by 4 p.m. (EDT), on September 29, 2025.
Docket entrySep 26, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Law Scholars filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
ResponseSep 29, 2025
Response to application from respondent National TPS Alliance, et al. filed.
Response (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Docket entrySep 29, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Economists filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
Docket entrySep 29, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Haitian TPS Holders filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
Docket entrySep 29, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Members of Congress filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
ReplySep 30, 2025
Reply of applicant Kristi Noem, et al. filed.
Reply (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
Referred to the full CourtOct 3, 2025
Application (25A326) referred to the Court.
Docket entryOct 3, 2025
Supplemental brief of respondent National TPS Alliance, et al. filed.
Document 1 (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
OrderOct 3, 2025
In March of this year, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a preliminary order postponing the effective date of the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decision to remove “temporary protected status” (TPS) from Venezuelan nationals living in the United States. See 8 U. S. C. §1254a; 5 U. S. C. §705. In May, this Court stayed that order while the Government appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the District Court’s preliminary order. Last month, the District Court entered final judgment in respondents’ favor, holding unlawful and setting aside the Secretary’s actions effectuating her decision—namely, her vacatur of a pending extension of TPS for Venezuelan nationals, and her termination of that status itself. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2). (The District Court also concluded that the Secretary unlawfully vacated a TPS extension for Haitian nationals. The Government now seeks to stay the portions of the District Court’s judgment pertaining to Venezuela, but not Haiti. See Application 7, n. 6.) The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here. The September 5, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 25–cv–1766, is stayed as to the Venezuela vacatur and Venezuela termination, pending the disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan would deny the application. Justice Jackson dissents. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a326_3ebh.pdf'>Opinion</a>)
14 days after filing
OrderOct 3, 2025
In March of this year, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a preliminary order postponing the effective date of the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decision to remove “temporary protected status” (TPS) from Venezuelan nationals living in the United States. See 8 U. S. C. §1254a; 5 U. S. C. §705. In May, this Court stayed that order while the Government appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the District Court’s preliminary order. Last month, the District Court entered final judgment in respondents’ favor, holding unlawful and setting aside the Secretary’s actions effectuating her decision—namely, her vacatur of a pending extension of TPS for Venezuelan nationals, and her termination of that status itself. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2). (The District Court also concluded that the Secretary unlawfully vacated a TPS extension for Haitian nationals. The Government now seeks to stay the portions of the District Court’s judgment pertaining to Venezuela, but not Haiti. See Application 7, n. 6.) The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here. The September 5, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 25–cv–1766, is stayed as to the Venezuela vacatur and Venezuela termination, pending the disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan would deny the application. Justice Jackson dissents.
14 days after filing
Order (PDF)

The case below

Ruling under review: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 25-5724
Filings: The application (PDF)Appendix with the lower-court ruling (PDF)