Federal courts in Illinois and Massachusetts have revoked Temporary Protected Status for nationals of South Sudan and Burma. These judicial decisions follow a Supreme Court ruling that limits the ability of lower courts to block Department of Homeland Security termination efforts.
The Mullin v. Doe precedent's impact on South Sudan and Burma
The recent decisions in the Northern District of Illinois and the District of Massachusetts are part of a broader legal shift affecting hundreds of thousands of immigrants. According to the report, the Supreme Court's June decision in Mullin v. Doe—which addressed the administration's termination of protections for Haiti and Syria—has become the primary legal anchor for these new rulings. This precedent established that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) possesses the authority to end these statuses, significantly narrowing the legal options for advocates attempting to block such administrative actions.
This trend suggests that lower court judges are increasingly undoing previous blocks they had placed on the Trump administration's efforts to end Temporary Protected Status. As the Supreme Court has held, the TPS statute largely prevents judicial review of non-constitutional challenges, making it much harder for affected groups to fight these policy changes in court.
Judge Saris and Judge Kennelly dismiss due process challenges
In the South Sudan case, U.S. District Court Judge Patti B. Saris of Massachusetts denied a request to postpone the termination of status. The plaintiffs had argued that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the legal authority to end these protections and that the move violated due process.. However, Judge Saris concluded that the Homeland Security Secretary has long held this authority and that the due process arguments were unlikely to succeed.
A similar outcome occurred in the Burma case, where Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed new legal claims. Kennelly found that the Homeland Security Act had effectively transferred TPS authority to the DHS, rendering the plaintiffs' arguments regarding Secretary Noem's authority ineffective. The judge noted that the due process claims were essentially attempts to repackage arguments that were already invalidated by the Supreme Court.
DHS's argument regarding "renewed peace" and security
The Department of Homeland Security has defended the decision to end these protections by citing changes in the home countries and national security concerns.. As Newsweek reported, a DHS spokesperson stated that TPS was never intended to be a permanent designation and had been abused by criminals and nationl security threats in the past.
Regarding South Sudan specifically, the administration pointed to "renewed peace" and the country's demonstrated commitment to reintegrating returning nationals. DHS officials argued that improved diplomatic relations make this the appropriate time to conclude what was always meant to be a temporary designation.
The surviving racial discrimination claim in the Illinois court
While most legal avenues have been closed, one specific challenge remains active in the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Kennelly declined to dismiss a claim alleging that the administration's handling of TPS terminations constitutes racial discrimination. This equal protection violation claim has been left for higher courts to weigh in on before the case can proceed further, representing one of the few remaining legal hurdles for the administration's policy.
The looming question of ICE enforcement timelines
As legal protections vanish,the immediate concern for thousands of immigrants is the speed of federal enforcement. It remains unknown how quickly U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents will begin detaining those who have lost their status. While some current and former officials told Newsweek that agents were previously instructed to avoid arresting immigrants involved in class-action lawsuits, the timeline for active enforcement remains unverified.
Lupe Aguirre, the deputy director of U.S. litigation at the International Refugee Assistance Project, characterized the administration's actions as a "cruel de-documentation campaign." Advocates continue to call for Congress to provide immediate and permanent protections to prevent mass deportations.
Comments 0