US Court blocks end of deportation protections for South Sudanese

Citing ‘unlawful’ move by the Trump Administration, the court described the justification for the decision as “pretextual” and not reflective of the real motive.

By Emmanuel Mandella

A United States federal judge has halted an attempt by the administration of President Donald Trump to terminate deportation protections for South Sudanese nationals, in a ruling that offers temporary relief to hundreds of migrants facing possible removal.

U.S. District Judge Patti Saris found that the Department of Homeland Security likely acted unlawfully when it moved to cancel Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudan, describing the justification for the decision as “pretextual” and not reflective of the real motive.

The ruling means that South Sudanese beneficiaries will continue to live and work legally in the United States while the case proceeds, preserving a protection first granted in 2011 following the country’s independence and subsequent conflict.

Judge Saris concluded that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem failed to acknowledge the genuine reasons behind the policy shift, instead presenting an explanation that did not match internal patterns.

According to the court, the department had adopted what was described as a “preordained pattern” of ending TPS for multiple countries regardless of conditions on the ground.

“It is highly likely that no country will pass muster, no matter how dire its conditions,” Saris said in the decision, signaling skepticism toward the broader approach taken by the department.

The Department of Homeland Security rejected the ruling, calling it an overreach by the judiciary and defending the administration’s authority over immigration policy.

The case was brought by a group of South Sudanese nationals together with the non-profit African Communities Together, arguing that conditions in South Sudan remain unsafe for return.

Court documents indicate that about 232 South Sudanese currently benefit from TPS in the United States, with dozens more applications pending.

For many, the program has provided access to employment, education, and stability after years of displacement caused by war and economic hardship at home.

South Sudan has experienced prolonged instability since independence in 2011, including a civil war that killed an estimated 400,000 people and displaced millions before a peace agreement was signed in 2018.

Although the country is formally at peace, localized violence, economic crisis, and humanitarian challenges persist.

Analysts say these conditions were central to the court’s view that ending protections could expose returnees to serious risk.

The decision follows similar lawsuits that have blocked attempts to end TPS for nationals of countries such as Haiti, Syria, and Myanmar, highlighting growing legal scrutiny over the policy.

Immigration advocates welcomed the ruling, describing it as a lifeline for vulnerable communities.

“This decision recognizes the reality that South Sudan is still facing serious challenges and that forcing people back would be unsafe,” said one advocate involved in the case.

The ruling is also likely to resonate in South Sudan, where remittances from diaspora communities play a significant role in supporting families amid a severe economic downturn and cash shortages.

Observers note that the continued presence of South Sudanese workers in the United States helps sustain livelihoods back home, particularly in states such as

While the court order prevents immediate termination of TPS, the legal battle is ongoing, and the final outcome will determine whether protections are extended or ultimately withdrawn.

For now, the decision offers temporary security to South Sudanese nationals who have built their lives in the United States but remain tied to a homeland on the path to achieving lasting peace and economic stability.

Utilities

“This decision recognizes the reality that South Sudan is still facing serious challenges and that forcing people back would be unsafe,” said one advocate involved in the case.