A federal judge nominated by President Bill Clinton granted an administrative stay that keeps Temporary Protected Status intact for South Sudanese nationals, weeks after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that courts lack jurisdiction to review such decisions.
U.S. District Judge Patti Saris issued the order Thursday in African Communities Together v. Mullin, keeping the Department of Homeland Security's November 2025 decision to end South Sudan's TPS designation "null, void, and of no legal effect." The stay holds until jurisdiction returns to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court covering Massachusetts and several northeastern states. DHS General Counsel James Percival responded within hours, posting on X that the move amounted to open defiance of the nation's highest court.
The clash centers on a straightforward question: after the Supreme Court told lower courts they cannot second-guess the executive branch's TPS termination decisions, does a district judge still have the power to freeze one? The administration says no. Judge Saris says her order is merely procedural, a placeholder while the plaintiffs retool their case around constitutional claims the Supreme Court left intact. Critics say the distinction is a fig leaf.
Percival's post on X left no room for ambiguity about where the administration stands:
"Another rogue district judge just postponed the termination of TPS for South Sudan. This is open defiance of the Supreme Court, plain and simple!"
The phrase "rogue district judge" is the administration's characterization, not a legal finding. But the underlying frustration reflects a pattern: DHS ended South Sudan's TPS designation on November 6, 2025, and Judge Saris has blocked or delayed that decision at every turn since.
In December 2025, African Communities Together, along with four South Sudanese immigrants holding TPS, filed suit alleging DHS terminated the designation without following required procedures and that the decision was motivated by unconstitutional discrimination. Saris issued a temporary block that same month. In February, she broadened the postponement, finding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed and describing DHS's stated reasons as pretextual.
The Trump administration appealed to the First Circuit in March. Saris declined to stay her own order while that appeal proceeded. The case was then paused while the Supreme Court resolved related TPS disputes involving Haitian and Syrian nationals, cases that would determine whether federal courts had any business reviewing TPS terminations at all.
On June 25, the Supreme Court answered that question in Mullin v. Doe. A six-justice majority held that the TPS statute bars courts from reviewing Administrative Procedure Act challenges to decisions designating or terminating Temporary Protected Status. The APA is the federal law that lets people sue agencies for acting arbitrarily or ignoring their own rules. The Court closed that door.
It left one window open. Constitutional claims, specifically, Equal Protection challenges alleging the government targeted a group based on race or national origin, could still proceed. That narrow exception is the thread Judge Saris's plaintiffs are now pulling.
After the ruling, the Justice Department asked the First Circuit to reverse Saris's February order. The plaintiffs did not oppose that request. Instead, they asked the appeals court to send the case back to Saris so they could amend their complaint and pursue only the constitutional claims the Supreme Court left intact. They then asked Saris to temporarily preserve South Sudan's TPS protections while those claims moved forward.
Saris granted that request Thursday. She stressed the order is a procedural measure to preserve the status quo while the court considers the plaintiffs' latest filings, not a ruling on the merits. The practical effect, however, is identical to what existed before the Supreme Court weighed in: DHS's termination decision remains frozen, and South Sudanese TPS holders keep their protections.
That outcome is precisely what other officials who pledged to resist the Supreme Court's TPS ruling hoped for, a legal mechanism to delay enforcement indefinitely.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, told Fox News Digital that Saris's procedural framing does not hold up.
"She has no right to 'maintain the status quo.'"
Von Spakovsky argued that the Supreme Court's ruling left Saris with only one proper course of action, dismissal.
"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."
He went further, calling for emergency Supreme Court intervention and judicial discipline:
"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."
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan echoed the bewilderment in more measured terms. He told Fox News Digital:
"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."
Wessan's use of the plural, "some district courts", suggests the South Sudan case is not the only instance where lower courts have continued to block TPS terminations after the Supreme Court's June 25 decision. The scope of that resistance, however, is not detailed in available reporting.
Judge Saris was nominated to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1993. She has presided over a number of high-profile immigration disputes involving both the Trump and Biden administrations. Her willingness to block executive action on immigration is not new, but the stakes are higher now that the Supreme Court has spoken directly on TPS jurisdiction.
The question is whether the constitutional Equal Protection claims the plaintiffs plan to pursue give Saris legitimate grounds to maintain her stay, or whether the stay itself is an exercise of jurisdiction the Supreme Court just told her she does not have. The administration clearly believes it is the latter. The plaintiffs argue they are pursuing the one avenue the Court explicitly left open.
Judges clashing with federal immigration enforcement has become a recurring theme. A Clinton-appointed judge in another case drew scrutiny for releasing a convicted plane hijacker from ICE custody. In Wisconsin, a former Milwaukee judge faces sentencing for obstructing an ICE arrest inside her own courthouse. And in yet another case, a Biden-appointed judge freed an illegal immigrant wanted for murder on $500 bail.
Each case is different in its specifics. But the pattern is consistent: individual judges using their authority to delay, obstruct, or override federal immigration enforcement, even when higher courts or the executive branch have acted.
The First Circuit has not yet ruled on the Justice Department's request to reverse Saris's February order. How quickly it acts, and whether it addresses the new administrative stay, will determine whether the South Sudan TPS protections remain frozen for weeks, months, or longer.
If the First Circuit does not intervene, the administration's options narrow to an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court itself. Von Spakovsky has already called for exactly that. The Supreme Court has shown willingness to take up major immigration questions on an expedited basis, but the justices may prefer to let the appellate process play out before stepping in again.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and African Communities Together for comment. Neither response was reported.
The practical reality is this: DHS terminated South Sudan's TPS designation eight months ago. A six-justice Supreme Court majority said federal courts cannot review those terminations under the APA. And a single district judge in Massachusetts has kept the termination on ice anyway, first under the APA theory the Supreme Court rejected, and now under a procedural stay she says preserves the status quo while new claims take shape.
A Supreme Court ruling that lower courts lack jurisdiction only matters if lower courts treat it that way. So far, at least one judge has found a workaround, and the administration is left asking the same court that already ruled in its favor to enforce what it already decided.
