Case 1:25-cv-02471-ACR Document 124 Filed 02/02/26
Page 19 of 83
rather expansive view that the Secretary’s TPS decision making is immune from judicial review.
This Court joins the chorus.
A. The Presumption in Favor of Judicial Review
The Court begins with a “familiar principle of statutory construction: the presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action.” Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 251 (2010). This presumption is “well-settled” and “strong.” Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U.S. 221, 229 (2020) (cleaned up); accord Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 16 (2020). And relevant here, courts “consistently” apply it “to legislation regarding immigration, and particularly to questions concerning the preservation of federal-court jurisdiction.” Kucana, 558 U.S. at 251; see also McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 496 (1991).
The presumption applies with force to claims that an agency exceeded statutory authority, see Amgen, Inc. v. Smith, 357 F.3d 103, 111 (D.C. Cir. 2004), or violated the Constitution, see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603 (1988). Not surprising. For it would be “an extreme position” indeed to offer no recourse for action taken outside the bounds of an agency’s statutory grant or our constitutional order. Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Fam. Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 680
8 The cases on point from President Trump’s second administration include NTPSA VI, 2026 WL 226573, at *7–16; NTPSA III, 150 F.4th at 1016–18; CASA, Inc. v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 576, 588–94 (D. Md. 2025) (finding jurisdiction as to the termination of Afghanistan’s and Cameroon’s designations but denying cross-motions for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ motion for a stay); Doe v. Noem, No. 25 C 15483, 2026 WL 184544 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2026) (staying termination of Burma’s designation); HECA, 789 F. Supp. 3d at 269; Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-5687, 2025 WL 4058572, at *7-12 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025) (granting summary judgment setting aside Honduras”, Nepal’s, and Nicaragua’s designations); Doe v. Noem, No. 25 Civ. 8686 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2025) (Dkt. 59 at 9–11 (Oral Ruling Tr.) (postponing the termination of Syria’s TPS designation)).
The relevant cases from the first Trump administration include Saget, 375 F. Supp. 3d at 330–33 and Centro Presente v. Department of Homeland Security, 332 F. Supp. 3d 393, 404–05 (D. Mass. 2018).
8
19
