The Department of Homeland Security is accusing a federal judge of defying the Supreme Court after she issued an administrative stay preserving Temporary Protected Status protections for South Sudanese nationals while plaintiffs amend their lawsuit to pursue constitutional claims.

U.S. District Judge Patti Saris, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, granted the stay Thursday in African Communities Together v. Mullin. The order temporarily freezes the Trump administration's Nov. 6, 2025 decision ending South Sudan's TPS designation, keeping it "null, void, and of no legal effect" until jurisdiction returns to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

Saris emphasized that her order is a procedural measure designed to preserve the status quo while she considers whether plaintiffs may amend their complaint and seek renewed relief on constitutional grounds. She stressed the order does not constitute a ruling on the merits of the underlying case.

What the Left Is Saying

Civil liberties advocates argue Saris acted properly within her authority as a federal judge considering procedural matters left open by the Supreme Court's own decision.

The plaintiffs in African Communities Together v. Mullin allege that DHS unlawfully ended South Sudan's TPS designation without following required procedures and that the termination was motivated by unconstitutional discrimination. They are seeking to amend their complaint to pursue Equal Protection claims, which the Supreme Court explicitly left intact in its June ruling.

Before the high court's decision, Saris had repeatedly ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. In December 2025, she temporarily blocked the TPS termination. In February, she issued a broader postponement after finding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed because DHS allegedly failed to follow required procedures and offered pretextual reasons for ending the designation.

The lawsuit was filed by African Communities Together and four South Sudanese immigrants currently protected under TPS status.

What the Right Is Saying

DHS officials and conservative legal scholars say Saris has overstepped her authority in defiance of clear Supreme Court precedent.

"Another rogue district judge just postponed the termination of TPS for South Sudan," DHS General Counsel James Percival wrote on X. "This is open defiance of the Supreme Court, plain and simple!"

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, argued Saris has no jurisdiction to issue any relief following the Supreme Court's June decision in Mullin v. Doe.

"She has no right to 'maintain the status quo,'" von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital. "No jurisdiction means no jurisdiction and under the applicable law, the only proper course of judicial action is to dismiss the lawsuits."

Von Spakovsky said the Supreme Court's interpretation of the TPS statute applies equally to South Sudan as it does to Syria and Haiti, which were at issue in the Mullin case.

Eric Wessan, Iowa's solicitor general, also criticized the ruling. "The Supreme Court ruled that district courts lack jurisdiction to review terminations of temporary protected status," he told Fox News Digital. "I'm confused why some district courts have not yet removed any remaining roadblocks."

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Justice Department asked the 1st Circuit to reverse Saris' February ruling. The plaintiffs did not oppose that request but instead asked the appeals court to return the case so they could amend their complaint.

What the Numbers Show

The dispute centers on the Supreme Court's June 25 decision in Mullin v. Doe, in which a 6-3 majority held that the TPS statute bars courts from reviewing Administrative Procedure Act challenges to decisions designating or terminating Temporary Protected Status.

That ruling blocked the APA claims that Saris had relied on in February to delay South Sudan's TPS termination while allowing constitutional Equal Protection claims to continue.

The administration announced its decision to end South Sudan's TPS designation in November 2025. Approximately 800 South Sudanese nationals were estimated to hold TPS status at that time, according to government data cited in court filings.

South Sudan has held TPS designation since 2011, making it one of the longest-running designations in the program's history.

The Bottom Line

The case now returns to Saris' courtroom where she will decide whether plaintiffs can proceed with constitutional claims after the Supreme Court narrowed the avenues for challenging TPS terminations. DHS is expected to continue pursuing dismissal of the lawsuit entirely.

Conservative legal groups are calling on the administration to seek emergency appeals directly to the Supreme Court if lower courts continue issuing relief in TPS cases, and some have suggested judicial discipline proceedings against judges who issue rulings they view as defying precedent.

Plaintiffs' attorneys argue their Equal Protection claims remain viable and that preserving TPS protections during litigation serves the interests of due process. The 1st Circuit will retain jurisdiction over any appeals while the district court considers amendment motions.