U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston rejected a last-ditch effort by immigrant-rights advocates to maintain South Sudan’s Temporary Protected Status designation, clearing the path for immediate termination of protective status for South Sudanese nationals. The ruling comes after a three-judge panel on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Saris’s earlier administrative pause against the Trump administration’s effort to end TPS for South Sudan, and reflects the practical impact of the Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in Mullin v. Doe.
What changed
Judge Saris rejected a last-ditch effort by immigrant-rights advocates to maintain South Sudan’s Temporary Protected Status designation after the U.S. Supreme Court in June allowed the administration to end similar protections for thousands of people from Haiti and Syria. Saris, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, concluded Congress had likewise transferred authority over TPS to DHS and said arguments to the contrary rested on a “self-contradictory, self-defeating foundation”.
The plaintiff organization, African Communities Together, had sought to preserve status quo protections while pursuing amended constitutional claims. DHS moved in November to terminate TPS for conflict-ridden South Sudan, saying the country no longer met the conditions for the designation, which was first issued in 2011.
Why it matters
This ruling removes the final judicial barrier to South Sudan TPS termination in the district court. The Supreme Court’s ruling, powered by its 6-3 conservative majority, curtailed the ability of lower-court judges to review the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s efforts under Trump to end TPS for about a dozen countries.
For practitioners, the decision means:
- No further stay or administrative pause protection: South Sudanese TPS beneficiaries can no longer rely on emergency judicial relief to preserve status, absent a successful appeal or intervention by another court.
- Immediate termination risk: Hundreds of South Sudanese nationals now face potential loss of work authorization and exposure to deportation, with no district-court-level reprieve.
- Constrained constitutional claims: The TPS statute’s judicial-review bar applies to all non-constitutional claims challenging the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decision to terminate TPS, and the Supreme Court has also limited constitutional challenges. Any remaining litigation must clear a much higher bar.
Way forward
If you represent South Sudanese TPS beneficiaries:
- Document current status immediately: Gather employment authorization, I-94 records, and TPS grant notices before expiration, as evidence of lawful status for future relief claims (VAWA, U visa, T visa, asylum reopening, etc.).
- Explore alternative statuses: Advise clients on eligibility for asylum reopening, violence-based petitions (VAWA, U, T), family-based sponsorship, or employment-based pathways if circumstances allow.
- Monitor EOIR / DHS implementation: Watch for guidance on grace periods, de facto tolling, or other administrative measures that may delay immediate enforcement.
- Preserve appellate record: If your client wishes to pursue further appellate review through the First Circuit, act quickly; the narrowing of judicial review post-Mullin substantially limits the grounds on which to proceed.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Fola Editorial is a software company, not a law firm. You should consult with a licensed immigration attorney to discuss your specific circumstances and options. Immigration policy can change without notice, and this article may not reflect the most current legal landscape. Always verify information against the primary source linked above and applicable federal law.