A federal judge on Thursday issued a temporary administrative stay blocking the President Donald Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudan, a move that drew immediate criticism from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris, in the case of *African Communities Together v. Mullin*, temporarily preserved TPS protections for South Sudanese nationals, allowing time for the court to consider whether plaintiffs can amend their lawsuit to pursue constitutional claims. This order effectively pauses the administration's November 6, 2025, decision to terminate South Sudan’s TPS designation, leaving the termination without effect until jurisdiction issues are resolved and potentially returned to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Another rogue district judge just postponed the termination of TPS for South Sudan. This is open defiance of the Supreme Court, plain and simple!" — James Percival, DHS General Counsel
Judge Saris clarified that her order is a procedural measure intended to maintain the status quo while the court reviews the plaintiffs’ latest filings. She emphasized that the decision does not constitute a ruling on the merits of the case itself, but rather addresses the procedural path forward in light of recent legal developments. The administrative stay ensures that approximately 1,000 South Sudanese beneficiaries nationwide will retain their protected status and work authorization for the time being.
The judge’s decision comes in the wake of a significant U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 25 in *Mullin v. Doe*. In that 6-3 majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to review challenges to TPS designations or terminations brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, the high court's ruling did allow constitutional Equal Protection claims related to TPS decisions to proceed, creating a new legal avenue for plaintiffs challenging such terminations. This distinction is critical to understanding the current district court's actions and the plaintiffs' revised legal strategy.
The Department of Homeland Security expressed strong disapproval of Judge Saris's action. James Percival, DHS General Counsel, took to social media platform X to voice his criticism, stating, "Another rogue district judge just postponed the termination of TPS for South Sudan. This is open defiance of the Supreme Court, plain and simple." This sentiment was echoed by legal experts who questioned the district court's authority following the Supreme Court's clear directive on jurisdiction. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling should apply universally to South Sudan’s TPS designation. Speaking to Fox News Digital, von Spakovsky asserted, "She has no right to ‘maintain the status quo.’ No jurisdiction means no jurisdiction." Similarly, Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan told Fox News Digital, "The Supreme Court ruled that district courts lack jurisdiction to review terminations of temporary protected status. I’m confused why some district courts have not yet removed any remaining road blocks."
The lawsuit at the heart of this dispute was originally filed in December 2025 by African Communities Together and four South Sudanese immigrants who are TPS beneficiaries. The plaintiffs initially alleged that DHS unlawfully ended South Sudan’s designation without adhering to required administrative procedures, and further claimed that the decision was motivated by unconstitutional discrimination. Prior to the Supreme Court’s *Mullin v. Doe* ruling, Judge Saris had twice sided with the plaintiffs. She first issued a temporary block on the TPS termination in December 2025, followed by a broader postponement in February, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that DHS had failed to follow required procedures under the APA.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Justice Department asked the 1st Circuit to reverse Judge Saris’s February ruling, arguing that the district court no longer had jurisdiction over the APA claims. Rather than oppose this request directly, the plaintiffs instead sought permission from the district court to amend their complaint. Their revised strategy focuses solely on pursuing the constitutional claims that remain available for judicial review under the Supreme Court's *Mullin v. Doe* precedent. Concurrently, they requested that TPS protections for South Sudanese nationals remain in effect while these constitutional claims are thoroughly considered by the court. The administrative stay granted by Judge Saris allows this new legal approach to move forward, keeping the current protections in place during the ongoing litigation.
