Federal Judge Faces Scrutiny Over TPS Ruling Defying Supreme Court
A federal judge is under fire for issuing a temporary order that appears to defy a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudanese nationals. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris granted an administrative stay on Thursday, effectively pausing the administration’s decision to end TPS for South Sudan while she considers the plaintiffs’ arguments for renewed relief on constitutional grounds. This move preserves the protected status for South Sudanese individuals currently in the United States.
Judge Saris Issues Procedural Stay
The order from Judge Saris, presiding over the case African Communities Together v. Mullin, temporarily halts the November 6, 2025, termination of TPS for South Sudan. It declares the administration’s decision to be “null, void, and of no legal effect” until the case returns to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Saris emphasized that this was a procedural measure to maintain the status quo while the court reviews the plaintiffs’ latest submissions, not a final decision on the merits of the case.
The lawsuit, originally filed in December 2025 by African Communities Together and four South Sudanese immigrants, alleges that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unlawfully ended the TPS designation without adhering to required procedures and that the decision was driven by unconstitutional discrimination. Before the Supreme Court’s intervention, Judge Saris had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, temporarily blocking the termination in December 2025 and issuing a broader postponement in February. At that time, she found the plaintiffs likely to succeed, citing DHS’s alleged failure to follow proper procedures and its provision of what the court deemed pretextual reasons for the termination.
Administration Officials Condemn the Ruling
The Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, James Percival, publicly criticized Judge Saris’s decision, labeling it as “open defiance of the Supreme Court.” He expressed his frustration on social media platform 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!”
Echoing this sentiment, Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, argued that Judge Saris lacked the authority to issue any relief following the Supreme Court’s recent decision on TPS cases. “She has no right to ‘maintain the status quo,'” von Spakovsky told news outlets. “No jurisdiction means no jurisdiction and under the applicable law, the only proper course of judicial action is to dismiss the lawsuits, explaining that based on the law and the Supreme Court’s decision, she has no jurisdiction to entertain any claims in her courtroom.”
Supreme Court’s TPS Ruling and Its Implications
The controversy stems from the Supreme Court’s June 25 decision in Mullin v. Doe. In a 6-3 ruling, the high court determined that the TPS statute generally prohibits federal courts from reviewing or blocking government decisions to end Temporary Protected Status, particularly through challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). While the ruling allowed for constitutional claims, such as Equal Protection challenges, to proceed, it significantly limited the grounds on which lower courts could intervene.
The Mullin v. Doe case initially involved TPS terminations for Haitian and Syrian nationals. However, legal experts like von Spakovsky contend that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the TPS statute applies broadly to all such cases, including that of South Sudan. “These decisions on Sudanese nationals need to be overturned by the Supreme Court in emergency appeals and the judges need to be disciplined for their misconduct in refusing to follow the Supreme Court decision and the federal law that bans them from questioning decisions made by the executive branch on TPS status,” von Spakovsky added.
Eric Wessan, Iowa’s solicitor general, also expressed confusion over the continued roadblocks in district courts. “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,” he stated.
Procedural Path Forward
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Justice Department had requested that the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals reverse Judge Saris’s earlier ruling. The plaintiffs did not contest this request. Instead, they asked the appeals court to send the case back to the district court so they could amend their complaint to focus solely on the constitutional claims permitted by the Supreme Court. It was within this context that they then asked Judge Saris to grant a temporary stay to preserve TPS protections for South Sudanese nationals while these amended claims were being developed.
Judge Saris, who was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by President Bill Clinton in 1993, has a history of presiding over significant immigration cases involving both the Trump and Biden administrations. The current temporary order ensures that South Sudan’s TPS protections remain in effect for the time being. However, the 1st Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court could soon review whether the district court possesses the authority to issue such a stay, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements on judicial review of TPS terminations.
The White House and African Communities Together were contacted for comment regarding the ongoing legal developments.
