The Trump administration is voicing strong objections following a federal judge’s decision to temporarily halt its plan to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudan. This move comes despite recent developments from the Supreme Court that limit lower courts’ ability to interfere.
U.S. District Judge Patti Saris issued an administrative stay in the case African Communities Together v. Mullin. This action preserves TPS protections for South Sudanese nationals while she examines if plaintiffs can amend their lawsuit with constitutional claims.
The order prevents the administration’s November 6, 2025 decision to terminate TPS for South Sudan from going into effect, stating it remains “null, void, and of no legal effect” until jurisdiction returns to the 1st Circuit. Saris emphasized that the order aims to maintain the current situation while assessing the plaintiffs’ latest submissions, not as a judgment on the substantive issues.
James Percival, general counsel of DHS, criticized the decision on social media, labeling it as direct opposition to the Supreme Court. “This is open defiance of the Supreme Court, plain and simple,” he wrote.
Echoing these sentiments, Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, claimed Judge Saris lacks the authority to provide any relief post-Supreme Court’s TPS ruling. He insists that the scope of jurisdiction allows only for the dismissal of lawsuits, citing the Supreme Court’s decision as barring judicial review of government decisions to end TPS.
Von Spakovsky noted that the Supreme Court’s June decision in Mullin v. Doe clarified that federal law largely prevents courts from reviewing or stopping decisions related to TPS. Though Mullin focused on TPS terminations for Syrian and Haitian nationals, von Spakovsky argued that the interpretation of the TPS statute applies equally to South Sudan.
“These decisions involving Sudanese nationals must be reversed by the Supreme Court through emergency appeals,” von Spakovsky stated, urging disciplinary measures against judges refusing to follow the Supreme Court decision and federal law.
The criticism draws from the Supreme Court’s June 25 ruling in Mullin v. Doe. A 6-3 majority concluded that the TPS statute restricts courts from examining Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges to TPS designation or termination decisions. The ruling permits constitutional Equal Protection claims but denies the APA claims Saris relied on in February to delay South Sudan’s TPS termination.
Eric Wessan, Iowa’s solicitor general, expressed confusion over district courts not removing remaining obstacles post-Supreme Court’s decision allowing the administration to end TPS. Following the ruling, the Justice Department requested the 1st Circuit to overturn Saris’ February ruling.
Plaintiffs, instead of opposing this request, asked the appeals court to return the case to the district court for amending their complaint to pursue constitutional claims permitted by the Supreme Court. Saris agreed to preserve South Sudan’s TPS protections temporarily as these claims progress.
The lawsuit emerged in December 2025 from African Communities Together and four South Sudanese immigrants protected by TPS. They argue the Department of Homeland Security unlawfully ended TPS for South Sudan, bypassing necessary procedures and driven by unconstitutional discrimination.
Before the Supreme Court’s intervention, Saris consistently ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. She initially suspended the TPS termination in December 2025 before expanding the postponement in February. Saris found the plaintiffs likely to succeed due to DHS’s alleged procedural violations and predetermined decision, using pretextual reasons.
The Trump administration appealed to the 1st Circuit in March, however, Saris refused to stay her order during the appeal. The case was later paused as the Supreme Court addressed related TPS disputes involving Haiti and Syria.
The temporary order keeps TPS protections for South Sudan for now, but the 1st Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court may soon determine the district court’s authority post-TPS decision.
Fox News Digital sought comments from the White House and African Communities Together, the plaintiffs. Elaine Mallon reports for Fox News Digital and Fox Business, focusing on national politics.