? 
Alright, here’s your rebuttal—though I’m betting you’ll quietly delete it again once it doesn’t suit you.
“The likely outcome is getting clearer. Like I said before, if the government does not agree to the terms of relief, things may not end well for TPS holders.” – Courts don’t haggle over “terms of relief.” They apply the law. Section 705 already shields TPS holders without any back-and-forth. No need to spread panic.
“As expected, the government filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court on August 1, 2025.” – That’s standard procedure. DHS appeals every injunction—it’s neither a show of force nor a sign of weakness.
“The court is likely to give a decision around August 18, probably in favor of TPS holders based on past cases.” – Maybe, but “likely” doesn’t change a thing until the ruling drops. And regardless of the outcome, the Section 705 stay stays put until further notice.
“Then the case will go straight to the US Supreme Court.” – Not automatically. The government still has to petition for cert, and SCOTUS may choose to let the Ninth Circuit’s decision stand.
“If it follows the usual timeline, we could see a decision from the Supreme Court by mid-September.” – “Usual timeline” for cert can easily stretch into the next term. Mid-September is optimistic at best.
“In the meantime, all Nepalese TPS holders are authorized to stay in the United States, but being authorized to work will be tricky.” – Wrong. The Section 705 stay preserves both status and work authorization. Renewals might slow down, but your right to work remains until the court says otherwise.
- “In ECF 45, filed on July 14, 2025, the government told Judge Thompson that the court should not delay TPS termination for all.” – That’s a cramped reading of the statute. The APA’s broad Section 705 power lets the court pause terminations for everyone when irreparable harm is at stake.
- “If any relief is granted, it should be limited only to the named plaintiffs or National TPS Alliance members who joined before July 7, 2025.”– Class actions aren’t “first-come, first-served.” Once relief is granted under the APA, it applies to everyone in the affected group—here, all Nepali TPS holders.
“They argued that broad relief is not allowed under the law and TPS is meant to be temporary.”– “Temporary” doesn’t mean you get stripped of your rights first and sort it out later. APA stays exist precisely to prevent unlawful harm until the merits are decided.
“The National TPS Alliance said in their July 7 filing that they have over 900 Nepalese TPS members.” – That’s just their joining numbers—not the class boundary. You need members to establish standing; that doesn’t cap who the court can protect.
- “And if they claim to represent only 900 members, they should be willing to accept that any court relief might apply only to those members, not everyone.” – In APA class-style suits, relief isn’t transactional. You don’t pay dues for rights. Standing unlocks relief for all similarly situated.
- Membership vs. Class Relief – Membership numbers prove who’s aggrieved enough to sue. Class relief under the APA isn’t membership-based; it’s status-based. If the court finds a procedural or substantive flaw, an equitable stay covers all TPS holders.
- Practical Stakes for All TPS Holders – Whether someone clicked “join” has zero effect on their legal right to stay and work. The court’s job is to block unlawful agency action across the board.
- Bottom Line – The Alliance used its 900 members to establish standing. That opens relief for all 7,000+ TPS holders, exactly as Section 705 mandates.
“Had the Court followed the government’s request, TPS holders would have waited peacefully and with hope until November 18, trusting the process to bring a fair outcome.”– Without a stay, TPS holders would’ve lost work authorization and healthcare on August 5. Protecting people isn’t fear—it’s common sense.
“Since June, Nepalese organization leaders and the National TPS Alliance have been urging everyone to become a member to benefit from the court’s decision.”– That’s outreach, not coercion. But let’s be clear: APA relief isn’t membership-based. If the court finds the termination unlawful, it covers everyone affected, no dues required.
“If some TPS holders choose not to care, that’s their loss.” – True—but relief under Section 705 doesn’t hinge on who clicked “join.” Your rights aren’t gated by membership.
“But if they are asking the court to protect all 7000 TPS holders, then why highlight just the 900?” – They mention 900 to show who formally joined and has standing. Once standing is met, the APA allows class-wide relief.
I know you and I came from a place where nobody dares question authority. Here in the States, we challenge everyone, from the mail carrier to the President. And about those doomsday predictions, maybe dial back the fearmongering and just stick to the facts, alright?Just a quick heads-up to all TPS holders: don’t treat the current stay as a forever safeguard. If you’re eligible for a change of status or adjustment of status, go ahead and file as soon as you can. And keep an eye out for any court or USCIS updates—staying on top of things is your best bet.