Immigration Tracker (Jan–Aug 2025): Updates on TPS, ICE arrests and more

After weeks of legal back-and-forth,  the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a California judge’s ruling that had postponed the end of TPS for Hondurans and Nicaraguans until November, allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to terminate protections in early September. 

DHS had also declared Haiti’s TPS designation would expire on August 3, but a U.S. District Court judge delayed the decision until February 2026.

TPS provides deportation relief and work permits to immigrants from 17 countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters or other emergencies. Designations last 18 months and can be extended by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  

Earlier this year, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem reversed Biden-era actions and ended existing protections for Venezuelans. That decision put more than one million TPS holders at risk, including 350,000 Venezuelans whose protections were due to expire in April. 

After a federal judge in San Francisco ruled to pause the termination while the outcome of the lawsuit challenging the order was pending, the Trump administration argued before the Supreme Court that this interferes with executive authority over immigration. Administration officials also claimed that ending TPS would not lead to immediate deportation, and that affected individuals could pursue other legal options to stay in the U.S.

On May 19, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, allowing them to end deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans. In their court order, they also said that individual immigrants can file appeals if the government tries to cancel their work permit or deport them. The case continues to be litigated in the lower courts.

The Trump Administration previously failed to end TPS for Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Nepal and Honduras in 2017 and 2018.

The data-sharing stems from one of Trump’s executive orders directing federal agencies to cooperate with immigration authorities. Among them was HHS, which complied by giving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data on millions of Medicaid enrollees, despite objections from Medicaid officials who warned about legal risks and and potential violation of patient privacy. The dataset included information from Medi-Cal beneficiaries in California, where state funds cover their full-scope coverage.  

In response, 20 states filed a lawsuit that led to a preliminary injunction to stop HHS from sharing Medicaid data. California filed a similar lawsuit at the end of July to stop the U.S. Department of Agriculture from sharing similar data of people who get food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits. 

Meanwhile, the IRS started sharing data with immigration authorities in mid-August. The move, based on an April 8 agreement with the Trump Administration, marks a major break from decades of policy protecting taxpayer confidentiality, including for people who are undocumented. The decision sparked resignations within the IRS, including top leaders like acting IRS Service Commissioner Melanie Krause.

Immigrant rights groups and tax experts warn the deal could deter millions of undocumented workers from filing taxes, risking their income, tax refunds and legal safety. In 2023 alone, undocumented immigrants paid $66 billion in federal taxes, according to Yale Budget Lab.

Similarly, in late March, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) started sharing data with DHS on undocumented immigrants who receive housing assistance through family members with legal status. 

On Aug. 1, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued guidance allowing immigration officials to deport undocumented immigrants pursuing permanent residency through family members, a drastic shift from past practice. Currently, family-based immigration accounts for nearly half of all green cards issued each year. 

Experts warn the policy could also affect people whose visas expire while they wait for a green card decision, or those who lost legal status because of federal decisions, like TPS holders. It remains unclear how often  USCIS will place green card applicants in removal proceedings,, but applicants could now be sent to immigration court at any point in the process. 

USCIS, meanwhile, said these new guidelines are meant to ensure marriages and family relationships are “genuine” and “verifiable.”

According to NPR reports in early August, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has begun dismissing the cases of some asylum seekers who never received a credible-fear interview at the border. Those affected must restart the process, which attorneys warn could land them in detention.  

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has increasingly petitioned judges to dismiss asylum cases in immigration court. Even when judges refuse, enforcement agents have arrested asylum seekers outside appointments and sent them to detention centers — a practice reported as increasingly common in San Francisco. Some have also been detained during check-ins. 

In certain cases, asylum seekers without active deportation orders have won release after lawyers filed habeas corpus petitions, arguing these arrests violate due process. 

The order also prohibits agents from relying solely on race, ethnicity, speaking with an accent, or presence in locations such as bus stops, day labor sites, car washes, or farm fields as a basis for detention. It also requires immigration agencies to provide detainees with access to legal counsel seven days a week — a decision that could have national repercussions.

In her ruling, Judge Frimpong wrote that “roving patrols” without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth Amendment, and that denying detainees access to legal representation violates the Fifth Amendment.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by three immigrants arrested at a Pasadena bus stop and two U.S. citizens detained alongside them — one of whom reportedly showed agents valid identification but was still held.

Earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a similar suit after the Border Patrol ran a three-day sweep in Kern County in mid-January, arresting 78 people. Officials claimed they were targeting individuals with criminal or immigration violations, but a CalMatters investigation found only one of those detained had a criminal record.

Responding to that lawsuit,a federal court issued an injunction on April 29 that banned Border Patrol from conducting warrantless stops or arrests without probable cause in California’s Eastern District, which spans from Redding to Bakersfield. 

Under the new rules, these immigrants must remain detained for the entire duration of their removal proceedings — a process that can take months or even years. Immigration judges no longer have the discretion to grant release; only ICE officers may authorize parole in limited cases.

The change is expected to affect millions of immigrants, including longtime residents with no criminal history. Immigration advocates say it violates due process and makes it harder for people to access legal representation or stay connected with family.

The memo follows a new $45 billion funding law that allows ICE to double detention capacity to 100,000 people per day. Since then, immigrants in at least a dozen states have reportedly been denied bond hearings.

In one of its most controversial actions to date, the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act on March 15 to target individuals allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, rapidly deporting 238 Venezuelans to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador without due process.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the order the same day, and a federal judge temporarily blocked further deportations. The pause was upheld by an appeals court on March 28. But on April 7, the Supreme Court overturned the block in a 5-4 decision, saying the lawsuit had been filed in the wrong venue (Washington, D.C., instead of Texas). In a win for due process, however, the justices also ruled that detained immigrants must receive timely notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportation through habeas corpus proceedings.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, to review how much time migrants are given to challenge their deportations and whether the invocation of the act is legal in the first place.

Since then, additional rulings have limited enforcement:

• On April 18, the Supreme Court ruled 7–2 to block the removal of a group of Venezuelan migrants detained in North Texas. That same day, the Trump administration said it would proceed under other immigration laws to deport them.
• On April 28, a district court judge ruled Trump’s use of the act “unlawful” and barred deportations of Venezuelans in South Texas under the policy. Judges in other cities, like Los Angeles and El Paso, have also issued similar rulings over the past few weeks. 
• On June 4, Judge James Boasberg ruled that the March deportations of 140 Venezuelan men to El Salvador were illegal. In his ruling, he allowed the deportees to challenge their removal, although he did not directly order the Trump administration to bring them back.

More than a month later, the 252 men sent to El Salvador were released in a prisoner exchange. Several have shared stories of human rights violations that happened while in CECOT with the press. 

The judge, Joseph Laplante, also certified a national class action, the first successful use of that mechanism to halt enforcement since the Supreme Court limited nationwide injunctions.

Previously, federal courts in Massachusetts, Maryland and Washington State had paused the Jan. 20 order, but those injunctions were expected to expire by late July. Legal advocates feared the policy would soon go into effect in other states. Laplante’s ruling effectively resets the legal landscape for now.

In his opinion, Laplante, a Bush appointee, called the attempt to revoke birthright citizenship “an abrupt change of policy that was longstanding” and said it posed “irreparable harm.” The Trump administration plans to appeal.

Plaintiffs across the country, including in San Francisco, continue to challenge the order. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on its constitutionality.

In early July, USCIS updated its guidelines for the TN-Visa, which allows many Mexicans to legally work in the U.S. for three years with unlimited renewals in specific fields. Under the new guidelines, certain professions, like healthcare workers who interact with patients, mechanics, software engineers or electricians would no longer qualify for this kind of visa. USCIS also hardened its eligibility criteria, not allowing TN visa holders to work for non-American companies or as independent contractors, and requiring people’s college degree to directly match the profession they are now practicing. 

In a June 30 memo, the Department of Justice directed attorneys to prioritize denaturalizing certain citizens who have committed crimes like human rights abuses, gang-related crimes and other war crimes without giving these citizens the right to an attorney and lowering the threshold of proof needed for these cases. The DOJ also gave attorneys wider discretion to denaturalize people who lied in their immigration forms or committed fraud.

Immigrant rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had relied on these injunctions to pause controversial directives while lawsuits moved through the courts. These rulings had temporarily shielded all affected immigrants, not just those named in the suit.

Under the new decision, courts can only protect the individuals directly involved in a case. As a result, policies like the birthright citizenship ban may now go into effect in states that haven’t challenged them in court, even as litigation continues elsewhere.

A federal judge had initially blocked the Trump administration from deporting noncitizens to countries other than their own without due process on April 18 — a major obstacle to the administration’s push to expand third-country deportations. 

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit from immigrants and advocacy groups after ICE issued a Feb. 19 directive to fast-track the re-detention and removal of thousands of immigrants previously released from custody — including to countries with which they have no ties. 

Now, with a new Supreme Court ruling, the federal government is able to fast-track deportations to third countries. Advocates warn the policy could result in people being deported to unfamiliar or dangerous places without a chance to claim protection from persecution or torture.

Since January, the administration has expanded agreements with Mexico and several Central American nations to accept deportees from other countries, and is seeking similar deals with some African countries. On May 4, the Rwandan government said it is in early talks with the U.S. government to accept deportees.  The U.S. has also sought to deport some immigrants to South Sudan and Libya, but had previously been blocked by lower courts. 

On May 30, after a two-month legal battle,, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to suspend the Cuba, Haiti Nicaragua, Venezuela CHNV program. 

The CHNV program, launched by the Biden administration in 2022, allowed immigrants from these four countries to enter the U.S. legally for two years through a sponsorship-based parole process. Beneficiaries received temporary work permits and were expected to apply for longer-term protections like asylum.

Some former program participants are now pursuing other legal options to remain in the U.S., including applying for TPS or asylum. 

CBP One was a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s strategy to expand legal pathways and reduce unauthorized border crossings. Between 2023 and the end of 2024, more than 936,500 people entered the U.S. through CBP One appointments at southern border ports.

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump ended CBP One for new entrants, stranding thousands in Mexico with canceled appointments. The new revocation notices were delivered via the renamed CBP Home app and warned recipients that they must leave voluntarily or face removal and permanent bars to reentry. DHS has said migrants may only remain if they have another valid legal status.

Asylum seekers with active immigration court cases are not immediately affected by the parole cancellations, but could face enforcement once their cases are resolved.

On May 5, the Trump administration said it would offer immigrants who self-deport through the CBP Home app free airline tickets and a $1,000 stipend (to be paid after departure) and would deprioritize them for arrest and detention while they arrange their exit. 

Under San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance, local law enforcement and public agencies are barred from collaborating with ICE to detain or deport immigrants.

On Jan. 20, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to deny funding to so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. In response, City Attorney David Chiu filed a federal lawsuit against the order on Feb. 7., joined by several other cities and counties. These jurisdictions argue that sanctuary policies improve public safety by encouraging immigrants to report crimes without fear of deportation.

On April 24, U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a nationwide injunction blocking the funding cuts. He ruled that the administration’s attempt to punish cities for limiting cooperation with immigration enforcement likely violates constitutional protections around state and local authority. The decision marks a major legal setback for the White House’s broader effort to compel sanctuary jurisdictions to aid ICE operations.

A 2020 appeals court ruling allowed the federal government to withhold certain grants from non-cooperative states — but Orrick’s new ruling halts broader cuts, at least for now.

Doubling down on his crackdown, Trump signed another executive order on April 28 requiring the attorney general to publish a list of sanctuary states and cities, and directing federal agencies to identify which federal funds could be suspended or terminated.

Some agencies are already acting on this directive. In March, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced plans to cut funding to sanctuary cities, arguing that public dollars should not benefit undocumented residents.

On May 2, San Francisco joined seven other local governments in suing HUD over the policy, calling the new conditions unlawful and unconstitutional. The city receives $50 million each year through one of HUD’s programs, and City Attorney David Chiu warned that the changes could put more than 1,000 households at risk of eviction. 

There are currently 13 sanctuary states and more than 200 sanctuary cities or counties across the U.S. 

On March 21, the Trump administration cut funding for a program that provided legal aid to unaccompanied minors, leaving thousands to represent themselves in court without an attorney. The cuts affected a network of legal aid groups that work through the Acacia Center for Justice, eliminating support for both direct legal services and attorney recruitment.

In response, 11 nonprofit legal organizations sued, arguing the cuts violated a 2008 anti-trafficking law that requires the government to ensure legal counsel for unaccompanied children “to the greatest extent practicable.” The lawsuit also cited the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s own rules, which commit to funding legal representation when resources are available.

On April 2, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted a temporary restraining order, restoring funding until April 16 while the case proceeds. She ruled that the sudden halt in funding raised serious legal questions and would leave many children, some too young to speak or deeply traumatized, unprotected in adversarial court proceedings.

Yet legal aid providers say they still haven’t received communication or funding from the federal government. The group leading the legal challenge said the administration has failed to comply with the court order, leaving clinics in limbo and forcing some to continue representing children without federal support.

At the same time, the administration has ramped up efforts to track down some of the 450,000 unaccompanied minors released to sponsors during Biden’s presidency. According to an AP report, the government is sending DHS and FBI agents to visit children and vet their sponsors, claiming it is a matter of safety — a justification immigrant advocates have met with skepticism.

As part of its push for mass deportations, the Trump administration has invoked the Alien Registration Act to launch a federal registry for undocumented immigrants. The policy requires affected individuals to provide DHS with their address and biometric data. Those who fail to comply could face arrest, up to 30 days in jail, or a $5,000 fine. Immigration attorneys warn that those who register could also be flagged for removal.

Immigrants who entered the country with a visa, have applied for work authorization or parole, or hold green cards are already considered “registered” and are not affected by this rule. However, the act also mandates that lawful permanent residents carry their green card at all times or risk detention, fines, or jail time.

On Jan. 21, the Trump administration rescinded previous guidelines that had discouraged immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, granting ICE agents broad discretion to operate in and around schools, churches, and hospitals.

Soon after, several religious groups filed a lawsuit challenging the policy. On Feb. 24, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking ICE from entering places of worship or targeting immigrants nearby without a warrant.

However, on April 11, a separate federal judge ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing ICE to resume enforcement operations in houses of worship — a major blow to religious organizations seeking to protect immigrant congregants.

In early April, the administration added over 6,300 immigrants to the list, including at least eight minors, according to internal documents published by The New York Times.

Those affected include migrants who lawfully entered the U.S. under Biden-era programs but have since lost their temporary protections. Marked as “dead” in federal databases, they are now being denied access to essential financial services, including tax refunds, credit cards and housing.

Critics — including former SSA commissioners, legal experts, and immigrant advocates — say the policy is inhumane and potentially unlawful, with a high risk of mistaken listings and lasting financial harm, even for U.S. citizens. One former commissioner called the tactic “financial murder.”

A Texas district court ruled in January that parts of the DACA program are unlawful, effectively blocking the federal government from processing new applications. However, existing DACA recipients — often called Dreamers — can still renew their status.

On February 27, a path to citizenship for DACA recipients was reintroduced in Congress. The American Dream and Promise Act of 2025, led by Reps. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), has support from more than 200 members of Congress. The bill would offer permanent legal status to Dreamers, TPS holders and those with Deferred Enforced Departure (DED).

Established in 2012 under President Obama, DACA provides deportation protection and work permits to immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. The program has transformed the lives of more than 834,000 young people.

On Jan. 29, Trump signed the Laken Riley Act after it passed by Congress. Under the new law, immigrants must be detained by ICE if they are accused of certain low-level offenses, including theft over $100, burglary and assaulting a police officer. Immigrants in ICE custody for these offenses cannot be released by an immigration judge while their case is pending, a process that can sometimes take years.

Previously, mandatory ICE detention only applied to those charged with more serious crimes, such as murder and drug trafficking. 

Immigrant rights advocates say the law raises serious due process concerns, since immigrants don’t need to be convicted to be detained.