A federal judge in San Francisco has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plan to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Venezuelans—just days before the protections were set to expire.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, an Obama appointee, issued a sweeping injunction Monday, halting the Department of Homeland Security’s decision and allowing TPS recipients to remain in the U.S. with work permits while the case plays out in court.

Judge Chen claimed that revoking TPS would cause “irreparable harm” not only to the individuals affected but to the U.S. economy and public health. He went even further, accusing DHS of acting “arbitrarily” and being “motivated by unconstitutional animus.” His ruling blocks the enforcement of the policy pending final adjudication—a process that could drag out for months or even years.

The decision comes after DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced in February that the TPS designation for Venezuelans would end, citing national security concerns. Noem pointed to infiltration by the notorious Tren de Aragua gang and emphasized that the original humanitarian justification for TPS—chaos in Venezuela—had diminished. She cited improved safety and economic conditions in the country, saying that it was time to restore integrity to the immigration system.

But Chen dismissed those concerns and sided with progressive attorneys general from blue states, including New York’s Letitia James, who joined a legal challenge earlier this month. James and 17 other state AGs submitted an amicus brief arguing that removing TPS would strip legal work rights from hundreds of thousands and lead to mass deportations.

Their brief claimed over 600,000 Venezuelans currently benefit from TPS—a staggering number that raises serious questions about the scale and purpose of a program originally intended for limited, temporary relief during genuine crises.

The broader implication of this case? A single district judge has now derailed the federal government’s lawful effort to end a program that was always meant to be short-term. In doing so, he’s extended legal protections for hundreds of thousands of people who entered the U.S. under a policy rooted in emergency relief—not permanent settlement.

This isn’t just a rebuke of Trump’s immigration crackdown; it’s a judicial veto over national immigration policy itself. And it comes as President Trump and Secretary Noem are trying to clean up a border crisis years in the making—one fueled by lax enforcement, bloated asylum loopholes, and the kind of bureaucratic creep that turns temporary policies into indefinite amnesty.

In a statement, Noem made it clear that the administration intends to fight back. “We will not allow criminal gangs to exploit TPS designations, and we will not tolerate activist judges dictating immigration policy from the bench,” she said. “Our job is to protect the American people. This ruling undermines that mission.”

With the 2024 election mandate behind them and overwhelming support for a return to law and order at the border, Trump’s DOJ is likely to appeal. But the case once again highlights the massive power unelected judges wield over national sovereignty.

When activist judges start tossing out policies that Americans voted for—and that are backed by national security agencies—it’s not justice. It’s subversion. And if nothing is done, it won’t stop with TPS.

It’s time for Congress to reassert its authority and rein in rogue courts before another 350,000 turns into another million.