The LAW Way

Disclaimer: This blog post is intended solely for educational and informational purposes. It is not legal advice, nor is it intended to influence political positions or actions. I deeply respect the institutions of the United States and the solemnity of their processes. Nothing in this post should be interpreted as criticism, protest, or political messaging. My only purpose is to help clarify complex legal topics for those seeking to understand them. For personalized guidance, consult a licensed immigration attorney.-Lissie

On May 19, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a procedural order in the case Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. National TPS Alliance, et al. granting the government’s application for a stay of a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court. While the decision did not resolve the underlying question of whether the termination of TPS for Venezuelans is lawful, it has immediate and significant implications for thousands of individuals.

This blog post explains the legal framework surrounding stay applications, how the Court’s decision fits within that framework, and what this means in practice — both from a technical legal perspective and in plain English.

The Legal Context of the Case

In early 2025, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Kristi Noem, announced the termination of the 2023 redesignation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuela. TPS is a statutory form of humanitarian protection granted under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a that allows individuals from designated countries to live and work in the U.S. due to conditions such as armed conflict or environmental disaster.

Shortly after the announcement, TPS holders and advocacy organizations filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the termination violated constitutional protections, including the Equal Protection Clause. On March 31, 2025, Judge Edward Chen issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the termination, citing the likelihood of irreparable harm to TPS holders.

The Supreme Court’s Order

On May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay of Judge Chen’s order. This means the injunction is paused — the government is allowed to proceed with terminating TPS for Venezuelans (2023 redesignation) while the case is being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The order was unsigned and did not include a detailed explanation. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, stating that she would have denied the application.

Legal Standards for Granting a Stay

The decision to grant a stay is guided by the following four-part test, established in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), and Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987):

1. A strong showing that the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits;
2. Irreparable harm to the applicant if the stay is not granted;
3. No substantial injury to other parties; and
4. Where the public interest lies.

In the Supreme Court context, additional considerations apply:

• A reasonable probability that four Justices would vote to grant certiorari;
• A significant possibility that the Court would reverse the lower court’s decision;
• The government’s harm is often merged with the public interest when it is the applicant.

Although the Court did not elaborate, the granting of the stay implies that a majority of Justices concluded that the balance of these factors favored the government — including an implicit finding that the government’s position on the merits has a strong likelihood of success.

Does This Mean the Court Agrees the Termination Is Legal?

Formally, no. The Court has not issued a ruling on whether the termination of TPS is lawful or constitutional. The litigation remains pending in the Ninth Circuit.

Practically, maybe yes — to some extent. Granting a stay based on the Nken standard requires a finding that the applicant (here, the government) has a “strong showing” of likely success on the merits. Therefore, the decision, while framed as procedural, does reflect a preliminary assessment of the legal strength of the government’s position.

This is a nuance often misunderstood outside legal circles. The Court is not issuing a final decision, but it is shaping the course of the case by allowing the policy (TPS termination) to proceed in the meantime.

A Note on Judicial Review of TPS Decisions

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A), decisions by the Secretary of DHS regarding TPS designations or terminations are not subject to judicial review. However, courts have consistently held that this bar does not prevent review of constitutional claims, such as allegations of discriminatory intent or denial of due process. That is precisely the legal basis upon which this lawsuit was filed.

So, What Does It Take for the Supreme Court to Grant a Stay?

As we’ve seen, the Supreme Court’s decision to grant a stay doesn’t decide the whole case — but it does allow one side (in this case, the government) to move forward while the legal questions are still being reviewed. And that kind of permission doesn’t come automatically.

The Court uses a specific legal standard to decide whether or not to grant that kind of temporary pause. So, what exactly does the Court look at?

Here’s how it works — in plain English:

1. Is the government likely to win the case in the end?

The first — and often most important — question is whether the party asking for the stay (here, DHS) has a strong legal argument. The Court asks itself:

“Do we think they’ll probably win when this case is finally decided?” If the answer is yes, the Court is more likely to approve the stay.

2. Will the government be seriously harmed if the pause isn’t granted?

This is about urgency and damage. If the government can show that it will suffer real harm (like confusion in policy enforcement or resource issues) by having to follow the lower court’s order while the case is still pending, the Court may step in.

3. Will stopping the lower court’s order hurt anyone else too much?

This part of the test looks at the other side — in this case, the Venezuelan TPS holders. The Court considers:

“If we grant this stay, are we going to cause serious or unfair harm to others?” Even if the government has a strong case, this harm still matters.

4. Is granting the stay good for the public overall?

Finally, the Court asks whether pausing the lower court’s order serves the public interest. This is about the big picture: national policy, legal consistency, and the impact on the public as a whole.

When the government is involved, the last two factors — harm to others and public interest — are often looked at together.

What this means for you:

By granting the stay, the Supreme Court did not say the TPS termination is definitely legal — but it did signal that the government’s arguments are strong enough to let them move forward while the case is being reviewed.

In other words, this wasn’t the final word — but it changes what happens now, and it matters.

While the legal battle over TPS continues in the courts, this moment highlights a deeper truth: temporary solutions leave lives in limbo. Now more than ever, it is essential to support legislative pathways that offer long-term stability. One such option is the Venezuelan Adjustment Act (VAA) — a community-led, bipartisan proposal that would allow eligible Venezuelans to apply for permanent residency. Regardless of how the courts rule on TPS, lasting protection requires congressional action, and that begins with informed advocacy.