2026-02-13

On February 12, US District Judge Ana Reyes denied the Department of Homeland Security's request to stay her February 2 ruling that blocked the termination of Temporary Protected Status for Haitians. The decision preserves work permits and deportation protection for more than 350,000 Haitian nationals currently in the United States. During the hearing, Judge Reyes read aloud email and social media death threats she had received following her initial ruling, underscoring the politically charged nature of the case. The stay denial means TPS protections remain in effect while the Trump administration's appeal proceeds through federal courts. DHS had argued that the preliminary injunction should be paused pending appeal, but Judge Reyes rejected this request. The ruling acknowledged that DHS possesses addresses of TPS holders in February 13, 2026 Springfield, Ohio, where Haitian migrants became a focal point during the 2024 presidential campaign. This detail raised stakeholder concerns about potential targeted enforcement actions should the administration ultimately prevail on appeal. The February 2 preliminary injunction was issued on procedural grounds, finding that the administration's termination notice violated Administrative Procedure Act requirements for public comment and reasoned decision-making. The substantive legal challenge continues, but the stay denial provides operational certainty for Haitian TPS holders through at least the next several months of appellate proceedings. For diaspora communities, employers relying on Haitian workers, and remittance-dependent households in Haiti, this ruling preserves critical income streams and legal status protections. The death threats against Judge Reyes signal the extreme polarization surrounding immigration enforcement under the current administration. Her decision to read these threats in open court appears calculated to create a public record of the pressures federal judges face when issuing rulings that contradict executive branch immigration priorities. This context is relevant for understanding the durability of the TPS protections as the case advances through appeals.