Immigration Tracker: Updates on TPS, work visas and deportation rules

Under the new policy, immigrants must be 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 its detention capacity to 100,000 people per day. Since then, immigrants in at least a dozen states have reportedly been denied bond hearings.

Legal groups are already challenging the policy in court.

The order also prohibits agents from relying solely on race, ethnicity, speaking with an accent, or being in locations such as bus stops, day labor sites, car washes, or agricultural fields as a basis for detention. In addition, immigration agencies must ensure that detainees have access to legal counsel seven days a week.

The ruling comes after a wave of immigration raids across Los Angeles that sparked protests, fear in immigrant neighborhoods, and a federal lawsuit alleging racial profiling and denial of legal rights.

In response to a lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong ordered the Trump administration to temporarily halt indiscriminate arrests based on race and to restore access to attorneys for those detained — 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 violated the Fifth Amendment.

The lawsuit was filed by three immigrants arrested at a Pasadena bus stop and two U.S. citizens who were also detained — one of whom reportedly showed agents valid identification and was still held.

On Sunday, July 13, the Trump administration announced plans to appeal the ruling, stating that “no federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy.”

The judge, Joseph Laplante, certified a national class action and issued a preliminary injunction protecting all children born after February 20, 2025, the date Trump signed the executive order. The ruling marks the first successful use of a class-action mechanism to halt enforcement after the Supreme Court limited judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.

Previously, federal courts in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington State had paused the order, but those injunctions were expected to expire by the end of July. Legal advocates feared the policy would soon go into effect in states that had not joined lawsuits. The new ruling effectively resets the legal landscape.

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 in court. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on its constitutionality.

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.

Almost two months after the Supreme Court let Trump end deportation protections for Venezuelans, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced July 7 that it would terminate TPS protections for Honduras and Nicaragua by early September. DHS had similarly announced that Haiti’s TPS designation will expire on August 3, leaving hundreds of thousands of Haitians that live in the U.S. without legal status by the start of September. 

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 actions by the Biden Administration and ended existing protections for Venezuelans. The decision put more than one million people with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) at risk of losing their legal status, including 350,000 Venezuelans that were set to lose protections in April. 

After a federal judge in San Francisco ruled to pause the termination while the outcome of the lawsuit 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. In the meantime, the case will 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.

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.

Trump signed the order on his first day back in office, prompting lawsuits from 22 Democratic-led states (including California), two cities (including San Francisco), dozens of civil rights organizations and several pregnant women arguing the policy is unconstitutional. Federal courts in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington State issued nationwide injunctions, pausing the policy while litigation proceeded. However, this injunction is set to expire by the end of July, following a Supreme Court decision that stripped federal judges’ off their ability to issue injunctions that can protect the rights of people not directly covered by a lawsuit. In states that did not file suits, Trump’s birthright order could soon be enforceable. 

Plaintiffs across the country have quickly moved to file class action lawsuits, as legal battles once again move to the lower courts. The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on whether this order is constitutional or not.

In contrast, large-scale operations have been reported in cities like New York City, Miami, Chicago, Dallas and Houston. In Los Angeles, ICE launched an immigration crackdown in early June that has been met with widespread protests. 

In January, Border Patrol agents from the same unit that is now overseeing raids in Los Angeles conducted a three-day sweep in Kern County, arresting 78 people. Officials claimed they were targeting individuals with criminal or immigration violations, but a CalMatters investigation found that only one of those detained had a criminal record.

Meanwhile, a significant legal development took place in California’s Eastern District, which spans from Redding to Bakersfield. On April 29, in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in February, a federal court issued an injunction banning Border Patrol from conducting warrantless stops or arrests without probable cause. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in February and will remain in effect while the case proceeds.

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. 

In mid-June, the Trump administration shared the immigration data of millions of Medicaid enrollees with DHS, despite protests from Medicaid officials worried about legal and concerns over violating patients’ privacy. The shared dataset includes information from Medi-Cal beneficiaries in California, where the state uses its own funds to cover their full-scope coverage. 

This is not the first time a federal agency has agreed to share previously private data with immigration officials. On April 8, the Trump administration disclosed in a court filing that the IRS had reached an agreement with ICE to begin sharing taxpayer data of undocumented immigrants under investigation or with deportation orders.

Though the agencies have not exchanged data yet, the move marks a major break from decades of IRS policy prioritizing taxpayer confidentiality, including for people who are undocumented.

The agreement has sparked resignations within the IRS, including top leaders like Melanie Krause, the acting IRS Service Commissioner.

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

Meanwhile, in late March, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) started giving DHS data of undocumented immigrants who benefit from federal housing assistance because they live with someone with legal status who applied. 

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.

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 stop using the Alien Enemies Act in that case but sought to proceed under other immigration laws. 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.

Meanwhile, more than 230 Venezuelans deported in March remain imprisoned in El Salvador. Their families say many have no gang ties or criminal records and were targeted for unrelated tattoos. On April 21, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele offered to repatriate the deportees — if Venezuela agrees to release an equal number of political prisoners.

On May 30, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to suspend the Cuba, Haiti Nicaragua, Venezuela program. 

The CHNV program, launched by the Biden administration in 2022, allowed immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela 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.

The Trump administration ended the program on March 25 and gave recipients 30 days to leave the country or face arrest and deportation. On April 15, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the government from carrying out mass terminations of CHNV parole, saying each case would require individual review and justification. She wrote that stripping legal status from people who complied with DHS rules “undermines the rule of law.”

The ruling keeps current protections in place but does not reopen the program to new applicants. DHS officials say they will continue to pursue legal avenues to dismantle the policy, which they argue exceeded presidential authority.

The case remains ongoing, and the CHNV program is still in legal limbo.

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 pe