Controversy Arises Over Temporary Protected Status for South Sudan

The Trump administration faces backlash for a federal judge’s decision to temporarily block its move to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudan. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris recently issued an administrative stay in the case of African Communities Together v. Mullin, preserving TPS protections for South Sudanese nationals as she evaluates plaintiffs’ efforts to amend their lawsuit on constitutional grounds.

The judge’s order freezes the administration’s decision to terminate South Sudan’s TPS on November 6, 2025, rendering the termination ‘null, void, and of no legal effect’ until jurisdiction returns to the 1st Circuit. Saris clarified that her decision is procedural, aimed at preserving the status quo while considering the plaintiffs’ latest filings, and does not address the merits of the case.

This decision is criticized as defying the recent Supreme Court ruling that limits lower courts from intervening in TPS matters.

James Percival, DHS general counsel, expressed his discontent on social media, characterizing the judge’s move as open defiance of the Supreme Court. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, echoed the criticism, arguing Saris lacks the authority for such an intervention following the Supreme Court’s decision.

The controversy arose from a recent Supreme Court ruling in Mullin v. Doe, which emphasized that federal law generally restricts courts from reviewing or blocking governmental TPS decisions. While the case involved TPS terminations for Syrian and Haitian nationals, von Spakovsky asserted that the Supreme Court’s interpretation applies equally to South Sudan.

Von Spakovsky urged the Supreme Court to overturn district court decisions regarding South Sudanese nationals through emergency appeals, arguing that judges should face consequences for failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s ruling and federal law regarding TPS.

The Supreme Court’s June decision blocked Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges to TPS decisions, although constitutional Equal Protection claims remain viable. Despite the Supreme Court’s stance, Saris chose to preserve TPS protections for South Sudan, a decision that has sparked considerable debate.

The Department of Justice followed up by requesting the 1st Circuit to reverse Saris’ earlier ruling from February, with plaintiffs supporting the appeal court’s motion to return the case to the district court to pursue constitutional claims.

Originally filed in December 2025 by African Communities Together, accompanied by four South Sudanese immigrants, the lawsuit challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s decision as unlawful. They argue the termination lacked procedural compliance and stemmed from unconstitutional discrimination.

Saris has repeatedly sided with the plaintiffs, initially blocking TPS termination in December 2025 and later expanding the order in February, based on potential procedural failures by DHS.

The Trump administration’s appeal reached the 1st Circuit in March, but Saris refused to stay her order during the appeal. The case was eventually paused, pending the Supreme Court’s review of similar TPS disputes involving Haiti and Syria.

Judge Saris, nominated by President Bill Clinton, has presided over several significant immigration disputes involving both Trump and Biden administrations. Despite the temporary order’s impact, impending feedback from the 1st Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court could affect the court’s power following this dispute.

Fox News Digital reached out for comments from the White House and African Communities Together. Elaine Mallon, a writer for Fox News Digital, covers national politics.