Reported / Citable
Background
The National TPS Alliance and several individual plaintiffs, some identified only by initials, sued Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security, and the United States, and obtained a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California. The order does not describe the claims or spell out what the injunction requires or forbids. It shows only that the Government appealed, that a Ninth Circuit panel earlier issued a decision in National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 166 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2026), and that the Supreme Court has stayed the injunction.
On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated that earlier Ninth Circuit decision, and remanded for further consideration in light of Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S. 324 (2026). The order does not summarize that decision or explain how it bears on this case. The same day, the Government moved in the Ninth Circuit to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. It asked for a stay that would take effect immediately when the Supreme Court's mandate issues on November 6, 2026, the date the Supreme Court's current stay of the injunction expires. Within the same motion, the Government also asked for an administrative stay of at least 21 days in case the court denied a stay pending appeal.
The Court’s Holding
A panel of Judges Wardlaw, Mendoza, and Johnstone denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal. In a footnote, the panel also denied the alternative request for an administrative stay of at least 21 days. This is a ruling on interim relief, not a merits decision. The order does not affirm, reverse, modify, or dissolve the preliminary injunction, and it does not decide whether the injunction was properly entered.
The panel gave no reasons for denying the stay. The order recites no analysis of likelihood of success, irreparable harm, or the balance of equities, and it does not discuss what Mullin v. Doe held. Its only further directive is that the court will set an expedited briefing schedule on the merits by separate order. That is a case-management step; the appeal remains pending on remand, and the merits questions are unresolved.
Key Takeaways
- The order is designated for publication, but it is a short ruling on a motion with no stated reasoning, so it should be read as a disposition of the stay request rather than as guidance on TPS law or on the meaning of Mullin v. Doe.
- The Ninth Circuit denied both a stay pending appeal and the alternative administrative stay of at least 21 days, so it granted the Government no interim relief from the injunction.
- The merits remain open: after the Supreme Court's vacatur and remand, the court will issue a separate order setting an expedited briefing schedule.
- The order does not say what the injunction covers or what happens if the Government seeks relief from another court, so those questions must be answered from the district court record and later proceedings.
- The caption page lists amici on both sides, including a group of states and the District of Columbia, local governments, economists, immigration scholars, Members of Congress, and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, but the order does not discuss their arguments.
Why It Matters
Practically, the denial means the Ninth Circuit has not stepped in to keep the injunction suspended once the Supreme Court's stay ends with issuance of the mandate on November 6, 2026. The Government asked for a stay timed to begin at that moment, and the order rejects that specific request. Because the order does not describe the injunction's scope or terms, readers should consult the district court record to learn whom it protects and what conduct it restrains.
The ruling is not a prediction about the final outcome. Denying a stay concerns only interim relief, and the panel will decide the appeal after expedited merits briefing, with the Supreme Court's instruction to reconsider the case in light of Mullin v. Doe. Precedential weight is limited. Although published, the order resolves a motion without reasoning, so it adds little rule of law beyond its own disposition. It also leaves unaddressed whether the reasoning of the vacated Ninth Circuit decision survives, because that question is for the merits panel on remand.