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

The federal government asks the Supreme Court to pause (stay) a lower-court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit while the appeal continues. The case is Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security v. National TPS Alliance.

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>)

This is a temporary order about what happens while the case is decided, not a ruling on who is right. The case continues in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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.

• SupremeCourt.gov docket page
• The application (PDF)

Checked September 25, 2026