COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The federal ruling blocking the end of Temporary Protected Status for Haitians drew attention for its sharp language about conditions in Haiti and the thin record supporting the decision.
But the legal fight may turn on a simpler question: Does the government need to explain itself when it ends TPS?
"If government can take the position that certain aspects of federal policy can be decided by coin flip, that's not how I want the government making decisions," said Geoff Pioply, an attorney for the Haitians.
The case, Miot v Trump et al, centers on the Department of Homeland Security's decision to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians. TPS allows people from countries facing war, natural disasters, or other crises to live and work legally in the United States.
In Ohio, about 45,000 Haitians were set to lose those protections on Wednesday before U.S. District Court Ana Reyes blocked the move while the case continues.
In her sharply worded ruling, Judge Reyes rejected the government's claim that TPS decisions are not reviewable and that the Department of Homeland Security can use "gut feelings" to make national security calls.
Reyes anticipated her decision being appealed, but legal experts say the ruling's tone reflected growing frustrations on the federal bench.
"Over the last few months, judges appointed by members of both parties have been showing more impatience when agencies don't follow the law," said Emily Brown, an attorney and Ohio State law professor who runs the university's immigration clinic. "You're seeing fierier decisions like this all over the country."
But Pioply thinks that the government's best argument for appeal may be to stand on its authority.
"We think we have the facts on our side," Pioply said. "The government's position is that may well be true, but that doesn't matter because the court should not be allowed to look at the facts."
The law that created Temporary Protected Status in 1990 gives the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem the power to decide when a country qualifies for TPS and when that protection ends.
It also included language meant to limit court involvement, stating there is "no judicial review of any determination."
At a January hearing, government attorney Dhruman Sampat argued that wording was intentionally broad and meant exactly what it says: TPS decisions are off-limits to the courts.
Judge Reyes rejected that view.
She said the plaintiffs were not asking the court to decide whether TPS should continue, but whether the government followed the law when it made that call.
"This distinction between decision and process is the ballgame," Reyes wrote.
That distinction became clear during a tense exchange in the courtroom. Reyes asked whether Noem could decide the fate of TPS for a country by flipping a coin.
Sampat said she could -- and that such a decision would still be beyond court review.
Reyes disagreed.
In her ruling, she wrote that Noem appeared to have followed orders from the president to end TPS "before conducting any analysis," ignored ongoing violence in Haiti, and failed to involve other agencies as required.
Court filings show the government's review amounted to a single, brief email exchange between staffers.
Pioply, who worked on TPS cases during the first Trump administration, said the email stunned him. Past reviews included detailed reports, embassy input and extensive documentation.
"There was a lot of paper generated," Pioply said. "To see a single email with two sentences in it was a huge departure from past practice."
Another key issue is how much latitude federal agencies have when claiming a decision is in the national interest.
In her decision not to renew TPS for Haitians, Noem wrote that doing so would be "contrary to the national interest."
Reyes said the court is not allowed to second-guess that judgment, but the law does require the government to explain itself.
This comes from the Administrative Procedures Act, which allows courts to set aside agency actions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law".
Sampat suggested that "national interest is supposed to be broad; it can be a gut feeling sort of thing."
Reyes cut him off.
"If the government's position is that the secretary can have a gut feeling of something and that is sufficient under the APA," she said, "then, yes, you and I are never going to agree."
In her ruling, Reyes concluded the government's national interest arguments focused on the wrong people. Noem raised concerns about people entering the country illegally or overstaying visas, but those are not people on TPS.
"This is the type of irrational decision-making the APA prohibits," Reyes wrote.
The federal government has said it will appeal the ruling to a three-judge appellate panel. While that appeal is pending, TPS protections for Haitians remain in place.