---

Upcoming Merits Hearing in National TPS Alliance v. Noem

The November 18, 2025, hearing in National TPS Alliance v. Noem (Case No. 3:25-cv-05687-TLT) before Judge Trina L. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is set as a merits hearing on plaintiffs’ challenge to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Nepal, along with Honduras and Nicaragua.

This hearing follows the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ August 20, 2025 decision lifting Judge Thompson’s earlier stay, which had temporarily postponed the termination. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling allowed the termination to take effect retroactively from August 5, 2025 for Nepal. However, the appellate court denied the government’s request to pause district court proceedings, meaning the November 18 merits hearing will proceed as scheduled.

At issue will be whether the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection and due process guarantees (due to allegations of racial animus), and other claims raised by plaintiffs.

---

Potential Events and Outcomes at the November 18 Hearing

While the precise agenda may shift based on motions or filings in the weeks leading up to the hearing, the following are likely possibilities based on standard practice in APA challenges to immigration agency actions:

1. Oral Arguments on the Merits

• Both sides will present arguments on whether DHS acted lawfully in terminating TPS.

• Key questions include whether DHS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious (e.g., failing to meaningfully assess Nepal’s ongoing challenges such as political instability, weak governance, economic fragility, or incomplete earthquake recovery).

• Plaintiffs are expected to highlight deficiencies in DHS’s administrative record—which exceeds 1,900 pages for Nepal alone—and argue that decision-making was improperly influenced by discriminatory motives.

• Amicus briefs from state governments, municipalities, labor unions, and advocacy organizations may also be considered, reinforcing plaintiffs’ claims of economic and humanitarian harm.

2. Possible Ruling in Favor of Plaintiffs

• Judge Thompson could find the termination unlawful and vacate (nullify) DHS’s decision.

• Outcomes might include:

  • Reinstatement of TPS for Nepali holders, potentially effective prospectively from the date of ruling.

  • Extension of employment authorization documents (EADs).

  • Injunctions halting deportations while DHS reconsiders.

• She could also order DHS to conduct a more robust, good-faith review of Nepal’s current conditions.

3. Possible Ruling in Favor of the Government

• The court could grant summary judgment for DHS, affirming that conditions in Nepal no longer justify TPS.

• DHS has argued that Nepal has recovered sufficiently from the 2015 earthquake and subsequent aftershocks, citing improved infrastructure and economic indicators.

• Such a ruling would cement the loss of TPS for approximately 7,000–7,500 Nepali nationals, absent higher-court reversal.

4. Partial or Interim Relief

• Judge Thompson could issue a narrow ruling, for example:

  • Invalidating only the short 60-day transition period as a due process violation,

  • Ordering DHS to provide a longer wind-down period, while still upholding the termination overall.

• Alternatively, she could request supplemental briefing or evidence on discrete issues, such as the plaintiffs’ claim of racial animus.

5. No Immediate Ruling

• As is common in complex APA litigation, Judge Thompson may take the case under submission and issue a written decision weeks or even months later.

• During this interim period, she could issue clarifying orders regarding TPS holders’ work authorization or protection from deportation.

6. Procedural Developments

• Pending motions—such as for summary judgment, dismissal, or even reassignment (which the government has signaled it might seek)—could be resolved during the hearing.

• If summary judgment is denied, the court could set the matter for a bench trial on the administrative record, a relatively rare but possible outcome.

• The court could also encourage settlement discussions, though this is unlikely given the administration’s firm policy stance.

7. Appeals and Further Litigation

• Regardless of outcome, the losing party will almost certainly appeal immediately to the Ninth Circuit and may seek another emergency stay.

• Plaintiffs may cite precedent from earlier TPS cases, including Ramos v. Nielsen (El Salvador and Haiti) and the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on Venezuelan TPS, to bolster their arguments.

• Should the Ninth Circuit rule against them, plaintiffs have already signaled their willingness to seek en banc review or Supreme Court intervention.

---

Implications for Nepali TPS Holders

• Legal Status: Without TPS, Nepali nationals lose protection from deportation, as well as work authorization, unless they qualify through other channels.

• Alternative Options: Affected individuals should consult immigration attorneys about:

  • Filing for asylum (if applicable),

  • Seeking adjustment of status through family- or employment-based petitions,

  • Exploring humanitarian relief programs.

• Community Mobilization: Groups such as the National TPS Alliance and the ACLU continue to organize, provide updates, and coordinate litigation strategy.

• Uncertainty Ahead: Even if plaintiffs prevail at the district court, appellate review will likely extend the litigation well into 2026.

---

Current Status

As of August 22, 2025, the November 18 hearing remains on the court’s calendar, with no postponements reported. The case is being closely watched as a test of the administration’s efforts to scale back TPS programs nationwide, and its outcome will have far-reaching implications not only for Nepali TPS holders but also for broader U.S. immigration policy.

---

---

National TPS Alliance v. Noem मा आगामी मुद्दाको सुनुवाइ

२०२५ नोभेम्बर १८ मा क्यालिफोर्नियाको उत्तरी जिल्ला अदालत (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) का न्यायाधीश ट्रिना एल. थोम्पसन समक्ष हुने National TPS Alliance v. Noem (मामिला नं. 3:25-cv-05687-TLT) को सुनुवाइ मुद्दाको मेरिट (merits hearing) सम्बन्धी हुनेछ।

यस सुनुवाइमा वादीहरूले गृहमन्त्रालय (DHS) द्वारा नेपाल, होन्डुरस र निकारागुवाका लागि अस्थायी संरक्षित स्थिति (TPS) अन्त्य गर्ने निर्णयविरुद्ध उठाएको चुनौतीमा बहस हुनेछ।

यसअघि, २०२५ अगस्ट २० मा नवौं सर्किट अपिल अदालतले जिल्ला अदालतको अस्थायी स्थगन आदेश (stay) हटाइदिएको थियो, जसले TPS अन्त्यलाई २०२५ अगस्ट ५ देखि नै कार्यान्वयन हुने गरी लागू गरेको थियो। तर, अपिल अदालतले सरकारको “जिल्ला अदालतको कार्यवाही रोकिने” अनुरोध अस्वीकार गरेको हुनाले नोभेम्बर १८ को मेरिट सुनुवाइ यथावत रूपमा अगाडि बढ्नेछ।

सुनुवाइमा विवादको मुख्य बिन्दु यो हुनेछ—TPS अन्त्य गर्ने निर्णय Administrative Procedure Act (APA), पाँचौं संशोधन (Fifth Amendment) अन्तर्गतको समान संरक्षण र उचित प्रक्रिया (equal protection and due process) को उल्लंघन भएको हो कि होइन।

---

सम्भावित घटनाक्रम वा परिणामहरू (नोभेम्बर १८ को सुनुवाइमा)

मुद्दासँग सम्बन्धित नयाँ निवेदन वा आदेशहरूका आधारमा कार्यसूची बदलिन सक्छ, तर आप्रवासनसम्बन्धी APA चुनौतीहरू मा सामान्यतया हुने सम्भावित घटनाक्रम यसप्रकार छन्:

१. मुद्दाको मेरिटमा मौखिक बहस (Oral Arguments)

• दुवै पक्षले DHS को निर्णय कानुनी थियो वा होइन भन्नेबारे बहस गर्नेछन्।

• मुख्य प्रश्नहरू:

  • DHS को निर्णय मनमानी वा विवेकहीन (arbitrary and capricious) थियो कि?

  • नेपालका हालका अवस्थाहरू (राजनीतिक अस्थिरता, आर्थिक समस्या, भूकम्प पुनर्निर्माण) पर्याप्त रूपमा मूल्यांकन गरिएको थियो कि थिएन?

  • निर्णयमा जातीय भेदभाव (racial animus) को प्रभाव थियो कि थिएन?

• वादीहरूले १,९०० पृष्ठभन्दा बढीको प्रशासनिक अभिलेख (administrative record) देखाउने सम्भावना छ।

• वादी समर्थनमा स्थानीय सरकार, श्रमिक सङ्घ, तथा नागरिक संस्थाबाट दायर गरिएको amicus brief पनि विचारमा पर्न सक्छ।

२. वादीहरूको पक्षमा फैसला

यदि अदालतले TPS अन्त्यलाई अवैधानिक ठान्यो भने:

• DHS को निर्णय रद्द (vacate) हुन सक्छ।

• TPS पुनः लागू गर्न आदेश दिन सकिन्छ (रuling मितिबाट prospective रूपमा)।

• रोजगारी अनुमति (EADs) विस्तार वा निर्वासन रोक्ने आदेश दिन सकिन्छ।

• DHS लाई नेपालबारे थप गहिरो मूल्यांकन गर्न बाध्य पार्न सकिन्छ।

३. सरकारको पक्षमा फैसला

यदि अदालतले DHS को पक्षमा फैसला गर्‍यो भने:

• सरकारलाई summary judgment दिइनेछ।

• यसले नेपालमा TPS अझै आवश्यक छैन भन्ने DHS को दाबीलाई पुष्टि गर्नेछ।

• यस अवस्थामा करिब ७,०००–७,५०० नेपाली TPS धारकहरू को स्थिति स्थायी रूपमा गुम्नेछ, जबसम्म उच्च अदालतले उल्टाउँदैन।

४. आंशिक वा अस्थायी राहत

• अदालतले मिश्रित फैसला गर्न सक्छ, जस्तै:

  • केवल ६० दिनको छोटो संक्रमण अवधि असंवैधानिक भन्दै थप समय दिन आदेश गर्ने।

  • तर TPS अन्त्यलाई यथावत राख्ने।

• वा अदालतले अतिरिक्त प्रमाण वा निवेदन माग गर्न सक्छ, विशेष गरी भेदभावको दाबीबारे।

५. तत्काल निर्णय नआउनु

• यस्तो जटिल मुद्दामा, न्यायाधीशले निर्णयलाई लिखित आदेशको लागि रिजर्भ गर्न सक्छिन्।

• यसबीचमा, अस्थायी रूपमा TPS धारकहरूको स्थिति वा रोजगारी अधिकारबारे आदेश दिन सकिन्छ।

६. प्रक्रियागत विकास

• अन्य निवेदनहरू (summary judgment, dismissal, reassignment) मा पनि सुनुवाइ हुन सक्छ।

• summary judgment अस्वीकार भएमा, अदालतले bench trial (प्रशासनिक अभिलेखकै आधारमा अदालतले चलाउने सुनुवाइ) को तालिका बनाउन सक्छ।

• अदालतले पक्षहरूलाई सम्झौता वार्ता गर्न प्रोत्साहित गर्न सक्छ, यद्यपि सम्भावना न्यून छ।

७. अपिल वा थप कानुनी कार्यवाही

• जसले हार्छ, त्यो पक्ष तुरुन्तै नवौं सर्किटमा अपिल गर्न सक्छ।

• वादीहरूले Ramos v. Nielsen (एल साल्भाडोर र हैटी TPS मुद्दा) वा २०२५ को भेनेजुएला TPS सम्बन्धी सर्वोच्च अदालतको फैसलालाई पनि आफ्नो पक्षमा उदाहरणको रूपमा प्रयोग गर्ने सम्भावना छ।

• जरुरी परे वादीहरूले en banc वा सर्वोच्च अदालतको हस्तक्षेप माग्ने संकेत दिएका छन्।

---

नेपाली TPS धारकहरूका लागि प्रभाव

• कानुनी स्थिति: TPS समाप्त भएपछि निर्वासनबाट सुरक्षा र रोजगारी अनुमति गुम्छ, जबसम्म अरू वैकल्पिक बाटो (asylum, परिवार वा रोजगारी आधारित ग्रीन कार्ड) छैन।

• वैकल्पिक विकल्पहरू:

  • शरण (asylum) दर्ता गर्ने,

  • परिवार वा रोजगारमार्फत स्थायी आव्रजन (adjustment of status),

  • मानवीय राहतका अन्य कार्यक्रम।

• समुदायको भूमिका: National TPS Alliance र ACLU जस्ता संस्थाहरू निरन्तर कानुनी संघर्ष र अपडेटमा सक्रिय छन्।

• अस्पष्टता: वादीहरूले जिल्ला अदालतमा जिते पनि, अपिल प्रक्रियाले मुद्दालाई २०२६ सम्म लम्ब्याउने सम्भावना छ।

---

वर्तमान स्थिति

२०२५ अगस्ट २२ सम्म, नोभेम्बर १८ को सुनुवाइ अदालतको कार्यतालिकामा यथावत छ, र कुनै स्थगन भएको छैन।

यो मुद्दा केवल नेपाली TPS धारकहरूका लागि मात्र नभई अमेरिकी आप्रवासन नीतिका लागि पनि महत्वपूर्ण परीक्षण हो—TPS लाई अस्थायी मानवीय उपकरणकै रूपमा राख्ने कि दीर्घकालीन संरचनागत सुधार गर्ने भन्ने प्रश्न यससँग जोडिएको छ।

---

US judge orders dismantling of Trump's 'Alligator Alcatraz'
FBI raids ex-Trump adviser John Bolton's home day after he slammed India tariffs
Maddow Blog | FBI raids home of former national security advisor John Bolton, a frequent Trump target
Proposed Ukraine land concessions are Putin's trap, EU's top diplomat tells BBC
Even McDonald's knows Americans are struggling with Trump's tariffs
Famine declaration will enrage Israel – but it is not a political stunt
Trump's Tariff Turmoil: Why Mohamed El-Erian Believes The Real 'Tax' Is Yet To Be Felt
Beijing responds as Ukraine rejects China peacekeeping role
Fact check: Trump and the case of the nonexistent $600 billion EU ‘gift’
GOP senator points to 'red state with a crime problem' while calling Trump's bluff on DC
Democrats are pushing back against crackdown on sanctuary cities