In our recent post on Through the Immigration Lens, we discussed the uncertainty created after the district court’s December 31, 2025 decision restoring Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for beneficiaries from Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua, and the resulting confusion for employers attempting to navigate Form I-9 compliance. The court decision left many employers in an I‑9 limbo, as TPS appeared to be restored but US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) provided little guidance. As a result, employers were left unsure how to properly complete or update the affected Forms I‑9.
On February 9, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the government’s request to stay the district court’s judgment while the appeal proceeds. The stay effectively pauses the district court’s recent ruling and reinstates the government’s prior TPS termination decisions during the pendency of the appeal. As a result, the related TPS-based EADs are once again deemed terminated.
Background and Procedural History. As discussed in our prior blog post, the district court vacated the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) TPS terminations for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua at the end of 2025. The district court ruling temporarily restored TPS protections and allowed affected individuals to continue to rely on TPS-related employment authorization. USCIS confirmed certain extensions but did not issue detailed employer-facing Form I-9 instructions, which left employers balancing compliance obligations against rapidly changing litigation developments.
The Ninth Circuit’s February 9 order changes that posture. By staying the district court’s decision, the court restored the status quo that existed before the district court ruling while the appeal is pending. As a result, TPS protections tied to that decision are no longer in effect at this time.
The plaintiffs (NATIONAL TPS ALLIANCE, et al.) in the case retain the option of seeking further review, including a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. However, employers should be aware that, when asked to intervene at this stage in similar TPS-related litigation, the Supreme Court has previously ruled in the government’s favor. For all practical purposes, employers should proceed on the assumption that the stay will remain in effect unless a subsequent court order alters the situation.
What This Means for TPS Beneficiaries and Work Authorization. The Ninth Circuit decision means that, while the appeal case is pending, TPS beneficiaries from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua will not have TPS protection or corresponding work authorization under the district court’s ruling. USCIS is in the process of updating its website and is expected to confirm that employment authorization documents relying solely on TPS from these countries are no longer valid.
USCIS’ silence after the district court ruling was telling. The agency did not issue any detailed employer‑facing Form I‑9 guidance, and that absence was almost certainly tied to the government’s immediate decision to appeal and seek a stay. Once DHS asked the Ninth Circuit to pause the district court’s judgment, USCIS was likely reluctant, or even instructed, not to release interim instructions that could be rendered moot within days. And ultimately, that’s exactly what happened: the government obtained emergency relief, and any temporary guidance would have been overtaken just as quickly as it was issued.
However, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling does not mean that affected employees automatically lose all work authorization. Some individuals may hold employment authorization through another status or category. Employers must continue to follow standard Form I-9 rules and allow employees to present any acceptable documentation that establishes identity and employment authorization.
What This Means For Employers and Form I-9 Compliance. Employers should now assume that TPS-based EAD extensions tied to the district court decision will no longer support continued work authorization once USCIS confirms implementation of the stay.
From a Form I-9 perspective, employers should focus on document-based compliance rather than employee nationality or immigration category. The appropriate next step is to identify employees whose continued work authorization was based solely on TPS-related EAD extensions associated with the litigation, and prepare for reverification where required. Reverification must follow normal Form I-9 rules. Employers may not request specific documents and must allow employees to present any valid List A or List C documentation demonstrating ongoing work authorization.
Employers should also ensure that communications and processes remain consistent and non-discriminatory. Compliance actions should be driven by document expiration tracking and not by assumptions about citizenship or country of origin.
Timing and Preparation. We expect USCIS to update the related TPS web pages relatively quickly. However, employers do not need to wait for USCIS to begin preparing.
Now is the appropriate time to:
- Review Form I-9 records;
- Identify impacted employees;
- Prepare internal communications; and,
- Ensure HR teams understand the expected reverification process.
- Preparing now allows employers to act promptly once USCIS updates its website and helps avoid rushed or inconsistent reverification practices. Employers should coordinate internally so that once confirmation is issued the organization can move forward in a uniform and compliant manner.
Practical Next Steps. Employers should review Form I-9 tracking systems (whether electronic systems or good ole spreadsheets) to identify employees whose work authorization relied on TPS-related EAD extensions connected to the district court decision.
If you do not already have a solid process in place, consider working with competent immigration compliance counsel to coordinate with your HR teams who should prepare employee notifications explaining that updated documentation is required as well as to review your overall process. Form I-9 completers should be reminded that employees may present any acceptable documentation and that discriminatory practices must be avoided. Employers should also continue monitoring litigation developments in case additional court action alters the current posture.
The bottom line is that the Ninth Circuit’s stay rolls back the district court’s decision for now and returns employers to a compliance framework where TPS-based employment authorization for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua has ended. Specifically, the designation for Nepal is once again considered terminated as of August 20, 2025, and the Honduras and Nicaragua designations expired on September 8, 2025.