A federal judge has accused the Trump administration of telling immigrants to “atone for their race,” using language rarely seen in a legal ruling to halt the termination of a crucial humanitarian program for over 60,000 people.

This explosive decision, issued late Thursday by a judge in California, temporarily freezes the planned removal of protections for long-term residents from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal.

The ruling sets up a profound constitutional clash over the limits of a cabinet secretary’s power and levels one of the most serious charges possible against a government action: that it was motivated by racial discrimination.

A Lifeline on Hold

In her order, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Homeland Security from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the three Central American and South Asian nations.

TPS is a form of humanitarian relief that allows people to live and work legally in the United States if their home countries are deemed unsafe due to armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions. Many of the TPS holders from these three countries have lived legally in the U.S. for more than two decades, raising families and building deep roots in their communities.

The Trump administration, led by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, moved to terminate their status, giving them just 60 days’ notice that they would lose their work authorization and become eligible for deportation.

‘A Preordained Decision’: The Legal Challenge

The judge found that the administration’s action was likely illegal on two separate grounds.

First, she ruled that it likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This is a cornerstone federal law that governs how executive agencies must behave. It requires that their decisions be the result of a reasoned, evidence-based process, not “arbitrary and capricious.”

The judge found that Secretary Noem’s decision was likely “preordained” – a political decision made without a genuine, individualized analysis of the current, dangerous conditions in each of the three countries, as the TPS statute requires.

“The judge found the administration likely violated a core rule of governance: that major decisions must be based on evidence and reason, not predetermined political goals.”

An Explosive Constitutional Rebuke

The second, and more stunning, part of the ruling was the finding that the decision was also likely unconstitutional. Judge Thompson wrote that the terminations were probably driven by racial animus, which would violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

To support this explosive claim, the judge pointed to a pattern of “racist invective” used by the President and other senior officials to describe immigrants from these regions, citing examples where they were broadly labeled as gang members, criminals, or people with bad “genes.”

“The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek. Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood. The Court disagrees.” – Judge Trina Thompson

The Limits of Discretion

The Trump administration has consistently argued that the law gives the DHS Secretary “sole discretion” to decide which countries receive a TPS designation. They have argued successfully on this point in other cases, including a recent emergency order at the Supreme Court.

This ruling, however, represents a powerful judicial counterargument. Judge Thompson’s order asserts that a cabinet secretary’s discretion is not absolute.

“This case is a powerful test of the limits of executive power. The administration argues its discretion is total; the court has ruled that this discretion cannot be used to violate federal law or the Constitution itself.”

A Fight for the Soul of the Law

This ruling is a significant, if temporary, victory for tens of thousands of immigrants who have built their lives in the United States. The legal battle, however, is far from over, and the administration has already vowed to appeal.

The case highlights a fundamental conflict in modern American governance. Is a cabinet secretary’s discretion a political tool to be used to advance an administration’s agenda, or is it a public trust that must be exercised within the strict, neutral boundaries of statute and the Constitution?

The answer will have profound implications for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the lives of the 61,000 people now caught in the balance.