At first glance, it might seem baffling—even defiant—that a federal judge would block the Trump administration’s efforts to revoke TPS for Venezuelans mere weeks after the Supreme Court issued a stay in the very same case. But upon closer inspection, the decision by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen is less about judicial rebellion and more about navigating the narrow legal opening the Supreme Court itself left intact.
The chaos began with President Biden’s 2023 TPS designation for Venezuela, allowing eligible Venezuelans to remain and work in the U.S. That status was extended by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in January 2025, just three days before President Trump took office.
Then came the policy whiplash:
- Feb. 3, 2025: New DHS Secretary Kristi Noem vacates the extension.
- Feb. 5, 2025: Noem terminates TPS for Venezuelans entirely, effective April 7.
- Feb. 19, 2025: Venezuelan TPS holders file suit in California.
- March 31, 2025: Judge Chen freezes the DHS revocation order.
- May 1–19, 2025: The Trump administration wins a Supreme Court stay of Chen’s freeze.
So, case closed? Not quite.
While the Supreme Court stayed Chen’s initial March 31 order, it also inserted a key carve-out—one that left room for legal arguments about TPS-related documents already issued during the Mayorkas extension window (Jan. 17 to Feb. 5).
Here’s the critical line from the high court’s ruling:
“This order is without prejudice to any challenge to Secretary Noem’s vacatur… insofar as it purports to invalidate EADs, Forms I-797… issued with October 2, 2026 expiration dates.”
That sentence was an open invitation for the plaintiffs to refocus their argument on reliance interests—those who had received legal documentation (such as work permits) during the short-lived extension period.
Seizing on that window, the plaintiffs filed a narrow motion requesting protection only for those already issued paperwork under Mayorkas’s extension. Judge Chen granted it, explaining that 5,000 Venezuelans who received lawful documentation during that valid period should not be punished retroactively.
Chen’s rationale? These individuals acted in good faith, relying on lawfully issued federal documents, and had a legitimate expectation that those documents would remain valid. To suddenly strip their legal status midstream—without individualized process—raises both constitutional and statutory concerns.
2/ Trying to decipher whether this is a stay-swallowing caveat or not. pic.twitter.com/F8Z8G4eVpi
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 19, 2025
This does not reimpose the TPS program for all Venezuelans. It merely preserves the legal status of a small group (roughly 5,000 people) who received formal approval during the extension window. They can stay in the U.S. and continue working while the broader case proceeds.
And notably, the order aligns with the Supreme Court’s own language, rather than ignoring it. That’s why, while the Trump administration could appeal this latest order, it may choose not to—especially given the modest scope of the ruling and the Supreme Court’s own invitation for such a carve-out.
