Two Temporary Protected Status programs, one covering South Sudan and one covering Ethiopia, are now far closer to ending after a federal appeals court said earlier court orders blocking the terminations cannot stand. The turning point was not a new factual finding about conditions overseas. It was a change in the legal landscape after a recent Supreme Court decision sharply limited what kinds of challenges federal judges may hear when the Department of Homeland Security makes TPS calls.
Join the Discussion
What the First Circuit decided
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed district court orders that had postponed DHS from ending TPS designations for South Sudan and Ethiopia. In the court’s view, the earlier injunctions rested on statutory arguments that are no longer available after the Supreme Court’s June 25 decision in Mullin v. Doe.
In its order, the appeals court explained that it had previously denied an administrative stay of the district court’s decision. But after fuller briefing, it reversed, writing: “Previously, upon the government’s motion… we denied an administrative stay of the district court’s order postponing the termination of Temporary Protected Status (‘TPS’) for South Sudan… Upon further briefing, we now reverse the postponement order in light of Mullin v. Doe.”
The same core reasoning applied to Ethiopia: the court again reversed “the postponement order in light of Mullin v. Doe.”
Why the Supreme Court ruling matters
TPS is created by statute, and Congress wrote a specific rule about court review. The Supreme Court’s June 25 ruling in Mullin v. Doe, as described by the First Circuit, made the boundary line very bright: “the TPS statute’s judicial-review bar applies to all non-constitutional claims” challenging the Homeland Security Secretary’s TPS determinations.
That phrase is the heart of what happened here. Many lawsuits over agency action argue that the agency misread the statute or failed to follow the statute’s procedures. Those are classic non-constitutional claims. After Mullin, the First Circuit concluded that courts generally cannot entertain that kind of challenge to TPS designations or terminations.
That does not mean the federal courts disappear entirely. Constitutional claims can be different. But if the case is built only on statutory objections, the Supreme Court has now signaled that Congress shut the courthouse door.
What changes for TPS holders
The immediate effect of the First Circuit’s reversal is procedural but practical: DHS is no longer blocked by the specific injunctions at issue from moving forward with the terminations. In the South Sudan case in particular, DHS is no longer blocked by that injunction from ending TPS.
For South Sudan, the administration’s termination had been set to take effect on January 5, 2026. The district court order had postponed that, keeping protection in place for the people covered while the lawsuit proceeded. With the injunction lifted, the litigation continues, but the earlier pause is gone.
One detail that helps put the stakes in perspective is the size of the affected group in the South Sudan case. The lawsuit referenced “roughly 200-plus” TPS holders who had remained protected during the postponement.
How the cases got here
The South Sudan dispute was filed by African Communities Together along with anonymous “Doe” plaintiffs. A federal judge in Massachusetts, Patti B. Saris, entered the order that postponed the termination.
Former Secretary Kristi Noem and current Secretary Markwayne Mullin had moved to end South Sudan’s designation after a review of country conditions, with termination originally set for January 5, 2026.
The administration’s position was that the statute, as the Supreme Court now reads it, prevents courts from second-guessing the Secretary’s TPS determinations through ordinary statutory claims. The First Circuit agreed that Mullin v. Doe foreclosed the legal theory supporting the injunctions.
Procedurally, the appeals court granted the administration’s request for summary reversal, denied a related stay request as moot, and sent the cases back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Separation of powers takeaway
This episode is a good example of something readers often ask about: who gets the last word on immigration related policy choices?
- Congress writes the TPS statute and can decide how much (or how little) judicial review is available.
- The Executive Branch, through DHS and the Secretary, makes the designation and termination decisions within the framework Congress set.
- The Courts interpret Congress’s limits. After Mullin v. Doe, the First Circuit read the statute as cutting off most non-constitutional challenges in this area.
That separation of powers story can feel abstract until a case like this arrives. The practical effect is that a statute’s “no review” clause, if read broadly by the Supreme Court, can take many familiar legal arguments off the table.
What to watch next
With the injunctions reversed, the next steps will likely focus on whether any constitutional claims remain viable and properly preserved in the cases. If the plaintiffs have only statutory arguments, the Supreme Court’s framework makes their path extremely narrow.
For the people and families who have relied on TPS, the most immediate question is administrative: what DHS’s implementation timeline will look like now that the postponement orders are no longer in place.
Quick FAQ
What is TPS, in plain English?
Temporary Protected Status is a humanitarian immigration program that allows certain noncitizens already in the United States to remain and work temporarily when their home country faces serious disruption, such as armed conflict or natural disaster, and the U.S. government designates that country for TPS.
Did the court decide conditions in South Sudan or Ethiopia have improved?
No. The First Circuit’s decision turned on jurisdiction and judicial review, meaning what courts are allowed to hear, after the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the TPS statute in Mullin v. Doe.
Does this mean no one can sue over TPS decisions?
Not exactly. The First Circuit read Mullin to bar “all non-constitutional claims.” Constitutional claims may still be litigated, but those cases can be difficult, and they have to be framed and preserved properly.