Judge’s Ruling Preserves Protections for South Sudanese Nationals in U.S.
A federal judge recently delivered a significant ruling that blocks the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudanese nationals. This decision addresses a planned phase-out scheduled for January 5, 2026, which would have left about 300 individuals vulnerable to deportation. The judge’s order ensures that those South Sudanese who rely on TPS can remain in the country, retaining their right to work legally.
The ruling has ignited a fierce response online, particularly from those critical of the judiciary’s role in immigration matters. One widely shared tweet expressed outrage, suggesting the judge was disregarding the authority of DHS while blurring the lines of constitutional powers. The tweet read, “This is what happens when judges face no accountability,” reflecting a broader frustration with judicial interventions in policy decisions.
The DHS had previously justified its decision to terminate TPS for South Sudan by citing improvements in conditions there. In November 2025, Secretary Kristi Noem noted the absence of widespread civil conflict and progress in governance as reasons for the termination. The department argued that the situation no longer met the TPS criteria set by the Immigration and Nationality Act, which requires ongoing armed conflict or extraordinary conditions for continued designation.
DHS initially planned for a structured phase-out, with benefits—including employment authorization—ending as scheduled. South Sudan has been under TPS since 2011, primarily due to civil strife, with the last extension occurring under the Biden administration in 2022. The judge’s ruling interrupts this planned transition, maintaining TPS protections and further muddying the waters of immigration policy enforcement.
While the name of the judge has not been disclosed, this ruling falls in line with a trend observed in courts that have repeatedly stepped in to halt DHS’s termination of TPS for several nationalities. Similar cases involving Haitians, Nepalis, and Venezuelans have seen federal judges grant stays against the DHS’s decisions. Courts have historically raised concerns about whether the DHS adequately evaluated the humanitarian conditions in the home countries before proceeding with terminations.
The ruling represents yet another obstacle for the DHS in its efforts to redefine TPS as a truly temporary program. Currently, around 1.3 million individuals benefit from TPS, with South Sudan having a notably smaller population under this status. Secretary Noem has argued that extending protections for any group undermines the credibility of U.S. immigration law, a contention that supporters of TPS adamantly dispute, pointing to the dire situations in many countries where return could endanger lives.
Critics of the ruling assert that some judges are acting contrary to the intentions of Congress and the executive branch by intervening in immigration policy. One tweet characterized this judicial action as “straight-up judicial tyranny,” claiming that such interventions prioritize political motives over legal obligations. The ongoing clash between judicial decisions and DHS’s discretion highlights the contentious nature of immigration policy today.
Supporters of TPS argue that terminating protections when conditions may still be perilous for returnees places vulnerable individuals in precarious legal situations. Immigration advocacy groups have celebrated past judicial stays, emphasizing the inconsistency and abruptness of some DHS terminations. According to them, such measures often stem from political biases rather than thorough, fact-based assessments of the conditions in affected countries.
As it stands, DHS must comply with the court ruling, but it remains uncertain if this decision will withstand potential challenges in higher courts. The ongoing legal battles continue to define the scope and future of immigration policy in the United States. The Supreme Court, having taken a keen interest in TPS cases, may ultimately shape the judicial landscape surrounding these matters.
Through the lens of this ruling, the battle between executive power and judicial oversight concerning immigration continues to unfold. The outcome not only affects South Sudanese nationals but also has broader implications for over one million individuals currently navigating TPS policies. As the landscape for immigration enforcement evolves, the stakes remain high, with courts playing a critical role in this ongoing struggle.
"*" indicates required fields
