Why Nepali TPS holders have a winning legal case before the Supreme Court (or any appellate forum),

(1) Nepal TPS is not as a discretionary termination case but as a constitutional rights and statutory violation case,

(2) irreparable harm outweighing any claimed government harm, and

(3) Nepal's case in some way is different from Venezuela, so much so that the government’s own arguments back against them.

Here’s a legal advocacy brief-style argument:

ARGUMENT: WHY TPS FOR NEPAL MUST BE CONTINUED

I. Constitutional Principles: Life, Liberty, and Equal Protection Demand Continuation of TPS for Nepali Beneficiaries

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Nepali TPS holders—many of whom have lived in the United States for over a decade, raised U.S. citizen children, and built lawful reliance on their status—face imminent deprivation of all three if TPS is terminated without meaningful judicial review.

Life: Deporting individuals back to Nepal exposes them to dangerous and destabilizing conditions that remain despite partial recovery from the 2015 earthquake—political instability, infrastructure collapse, economic weakness, and recurring natural disasters. This creates a foreseeable risk to life, which the Constitution protects against arbitrary government action.

Liberty: Families will be separated, lawful employment authorization lost, and individuals stripped of freedom of movement. This is not a mere inconvenience; it is an existential deprivation of liberty interests that have constitutional weight.

Equal Protection: When similarly situated groups (e.g., Venezuelans) receive judicial protection while Nepalis are denied it, without rational basis, the government’s actions take on the character of arbitrary discrimination.

Thus, constitutional principles require the judiciary to step in, despite DHS’s claims of unreviewable discretion.

II. The Statutory Framework of TPS Prohibits Arbitrary or Premature Termination

Congress designed Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a to provide stability, predictability, and humanitarian relief. It is not an executive whim; it is a statutory safeguard.

Textual Interpretation: The statute requires the Secretary of DHS to make determinations based on “conditions that prevent safe return.” Nepal remains afflicted by recurrent earthquakes, flooding, and economic collapse, which indisputably continue to “prevent safe return.”

Legislative Intent: Congress enacted TPS to prevent precisely what DHS now attempts—the forced removal of long-term residents into unsafe conditions. Terminating Nepal TPS while those unsafe conditions persist undermines Congressional purpose.

Judicial Review: While DHS argues TPS terminations are discretionary, courts retain authority to review whether that discretion was exercised lawfully and rationally, especially where decisions contradict the statute’s humanitarian objectives.

III. Irreparable Harm to Nepali TPS Holders Far Outweighs Government Claims of Harm

The government argued, and the Ninth Circuit accepted, that it suffers “irreparable harm” when its immigration policy cannot be enforced. But that harm is purely policy-based and reversible. By contrast:

Human Harm: Nepali TPS holders face deportation to a country still unsafe, loss of work authorization, family separation, and destruction of established community ties.

Economic Harm: Nepali TPS holders contribute millions to the U.S. economy in essential industries. Their removal would harm—not benefit—the public interest.

Reliance Interests: For over ten years, Nepali families lawfully relied on TPS. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held (see Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016)) that abrupt agency reversals ignoring reliance interests are unlawful.

Thus, under Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), the balance of harms overwhelmingly favors continuation of TPS for Nepal.

IV. The Government’s “Improved Country Conditions” Argument is Factually and Legally Flawed

Superficial Assessments: While DHS claims Nepal “recovered” from the 2015 earthquake, U.N. and World Bank reports show ongoing displacement, fragile infrastructure, and economic instability.

Cumulative Hardship: Natural disasters in Nepal are recurrent, not isolated. Conditions preventing safe return persist.

Disparate Treatment: The government treats Venezuela as warranting extended protection despite arguments of discretion, while claiming Nepal no longer qualifies. This inconsistency itself demonstrates arbitrariness.

V. Precedent Requires Judicial Intervention to Prevent Unlawful Agency Action

Arbitrary & Capricious Review: Under the APA, courts must set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. DHS’s termination of Nepal TPS, while ignoring reliance interests, humanitarian risks, and equal protection concerns, fits squarely within this standard.

Separation of Powers: Allowing DHS unchecked discretion undermines judicial review and permits executive overreach—precisely what the Framers sought to avoid.

Comparative Precedent (Venezuela TPS): The Ninth Circuit itself recognized that sudden reversals and disregard of statutory purpose warrant judicial intervention. The same principles apply with equal or greater force to Nepal.

VI. Public Interest Strongly Supports Continuation of TPS for Nepal

The Supreme Court has long held that equitable relief turns on the public interest. Here:

U.S. citizen children will be protected from family separation.

Communities will retain essential workers.

The United States will uphold its humanitarian commitments consistent with international norms.

Terminating TPS for Nepal serves no legitimate public interest—it only imposes cruelty and instability.

CONCLUSION

The Constitution, the TPS statute, and binding precedent all converge on one principle: Nepali TPS holders must not be cast aside by an arbitrary stroke of executive discretion. The irreparable harm to families, communities, and fundamental rights far outweighs any speculative government harm.

This Court must therefore reverse the Ninth Circuit’s stay, reinstate protections, and hold that the termination of Nepal TPS was unlawful, unconstitutional, and contrary to both statutory mandate and humanitarian principle.