The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has accused a federal judge of "open defiance" of the Supreme Court after she temporarily blocked the administration's effort to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudanese nationals. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris issued an administrative stay on Thursday, preserving TPS protections for South Sudanese individuals while she considers whether the plaintiffs can amend their lawsuit.
Saris's order effectively freezes the administration's Nov. 6, 2025, decision to end South Sudan's TPS designation, stating it remains "null, void, and of no legal effect" until jurisdiction returns to the 1st Circuit. She emphasized that the order is a procedural measure to maintain the status quo and not a ruling on the merits of the case.
James Percival, DHS general counsel, criticized the decision on X, 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!"
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, echoed this sentiment. He argued that Saris lacks the authority to issue any relief following the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Mullin v. Doe. According to von Spakovsky, the Supreme Court's decision affirmed that federal law largely prohibits courts from reviewing or blocking the government's decisions to end TPS.
The Supreme Court's June 25 decision, while involving TPS terminations for Haitian and Syrian migrants, was interpreted by von Spakovsky to apply equally to South Sudan. The ruling, decided 6-3, stated that the TPS statute bars courts from reviewing Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges to designations or terminations. However, the ruling did allow constitutional Equal Protection claims to proceed.
Eric Wessan, Iowa's solicitor general, expressed confusion over district courts not removing roadblocks after the Supreme Court's decision, noting that the ruling indicated district courts lack jurisdiction to review TPS terminations.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Justice Department had asked the 1st Circuit to reverse Saris's earlier February ruling that had delayed South Sudan's TPS termination. The plaintiffs did not oppose this request but asked the appeals court to send the case back to the district court to amend their complaint, focusing solely on the constitutional claims that the Supreme Court left intact. They then requested Saris to temporarily preserve TPS protections for South Sudanese nationals during this process, which she granted.
The lawsuit was initially filed in December 2025 by African Communities Together and four South Sudanese immigrants. They allege that DHS unlawfully ended South Sudan's TPS designation without following required procedures and that the decision was based on unconstitutional discrimination.
Before the Supreme Court's intervention, Saris had repeatedly ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, first temporarily blocking the TPS termination in December 2025 and then issuing a broader postponement in February. She found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed, citing DHS's alleged failure to follow procedures, its prior decision to end the designation, and pretextual reasons provided.
The Trump administration appealed to the 1st Circuit in March, but Saris declined to stay her own order. The case was subsequently paused pending the Supreme Court's resolution of related TPS cases.
Judge Saris, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by President Bill Clinton in 1993, has presided over several high-profile immigration cases involving both the Trump and Biden administrations.
The temporary order keeps South Sudan's TPS protections in place for now, but the 1st Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court could issue further rulings on the district court's power to issue such stays after the justices' recent TPS decision.