Supreme Court Slams Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Appeals

A federal appeals court just used a new Supreme Court ruling to shut down challenges and clear President Trump to end deportation protections for South Sudanese and Ethiopian migrants — with almost no judge able to review how the government made that call.

Story Snapshot

The First Circuit reversed lower court orders that had paused Trump’s move to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudan and Ethiopia.
The Supreme Court’s June decision in Mullin v. Doe said most legal challenges to TPS terminations cannot be heard by federal courts.
Only constitutional claims remain possible, leaving little room to question how or why TPS was ended.
Thousands who have lived and worked legally under TPS now face renewed risk of losing status and being deported.

What the First Circuit Just Did

On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a federal district judge’s order that had temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for South Sudan. The panel said its earlier refusal to grant an “administrative stay” was no longer valid after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mullin v. Doe, which changed the legal landscape. By granting summary reversal, the appeals court cleared the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to move forward with ending TPS, sending the case back to the lower court with far fewer tools to protect migrants.

A similar order from the First Circuit has now allowed DHS to proceed with ending TPS for Ethiopia as well. Judge Brian Murphy in Boston had previously postponed the administration’s February 13 termination date, saying more than 5,000 Ethiopians could keep legal status and work permits while he weighed their claims. The First Circuit’s brief unsigned order noted that his ruling rested only on non‑constitutional arguments, which Mullin v. Doe now bars, so the postponement had to be reversed. Together, these steps mark a major victory for President Trump’s broader effort to roll back humanitarian protections.

How the Supreme Court Closed the Courthouse Doors

On June 25, the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Doe, a consolidated case about TPS for Haitians and Syrians. In a 6–3 vote, the justices held that the statute that created TPS “plainly bars” federal courts from reviewing non‑constitutional challenges to decisions that designate, terminate, or extend TPS. In simple terms, that means judges can no longer check whether DHS followed the detailed steps Congress wrote into law when it ends TPS, unless someone brings a direct constitutional claim such as discrimination based on race. This ruling did not say TPS terminations are wise or fair; it said most lawsuits against them cannot even get heard.

Advocacy groups described the Supreme Court decision as clearing the way for “one of the largest mass de‑documentations in U.S. history,” because hundreds of thousands of people could lose legal status without meaningful court review. The Court acknowledged that constitutional claims are still possible but found there was not enough proof, at this early stage, that Haiti’s TPS termination was driven by racial bias. With Mullin in place, appeals courts like the First Circuit are now revisiting earlier stays and injunctions and, in many cases, lifting them because the legal basis has been stripped away.

Who Is Affected in South Sudan and Ethiopia

Temporary Protected Status has allowed people from countries facing war, disaster, or collapse to live and work legally in the United States for years. DHS announced in late 2025 that TPS for South Sudan would end January 5, 2026, affecting about 200 current holders and more than 200 eligible individuals. A Massachusetts federal judge temporarily paused that termination, saying TPS and its protections would continue while the court reviewed the case. After the First Circuit’s new ruling, that protection is now in serious danger because the judge can no longer rely on ordinary statutory claims.

For Ethiopians, DHS announced that TPS would end February 13, 2026, impacting around 5,000 people with TPS and more than 12,000 who could qualify. Judge Murphy had ruled that DHS likely failed to follow Congress’s rules for the program and did not properly consult other agencies before deciding to end TPS, so he kept protections in place. The First Circuit’s reversal does not say conditions in Ethiopia are safe or that the earlier concerns were wrong; it says the statute stops courts from judging those issues through non‑constitutional claims. Many families who built their lives around TPS now face renewed fear of losing jobs, driver’s licenses, and protection from deportation.

Why This Fuels Deep Distrust Across the Political Spectrum

These rulings strike at a wider worry shared by many conservatives and liberals: that decisions about immigration and legal status are being made far from public view, by officials and lawyers who rarely face real accountability. For conservatives who support stricter borders, the story highlights how much power DHS holds to change policy without long debates in Congress, feeding concern that unelected bureaucrats steer key issues. For liberals who focus on human rights, the fact that courts now must stand aside on most TPS questions looks like a justice system closing its doors to vulnerable people.

Across the spectrum, critics see Mullin v. Doe and the First Circuit fallout as another sign that the federal government protects itself first and the public last. Congress wrote detailed rules for TPS, promising a careful review of country conditions, yet the Supreme Court has now said that whether those rules are followed is largely beyond judicial reach. In practice, that leaves power concentrated in the hands of the Homeland Security Secretary and a small circle of advisers, with little outside check. For many Americans who already feel the “deep state” is real, this kind of shielded authority looks like confirmation of their fears.

What Comes Next for TPS and the Rule of Law

Going forward, the only remaining path to challenge TPS terminations is through constitutional claims, which are hard to prove and slow to resolve. Lawyers for South Sudanese and Ethiopian migrants may try to argue that the decisions were motivated by discrimination or violated equal protection, but the Supreme Court has already shown it will demand strong evidence. Meanwhile, DHS faces little legal pressure to explain its reasoning in detail, since most statutory claims are off the table. That reality risks deepening the sense that important rules exist mainly on paper.

𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐒𝐓 𝐂𝐈𝐑𝐂𝐔𝐈𝐓 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐄𝐒 𝐑𝐎𝐆𝐔𝐄 𝐉𝐔𝐃𝐆𝐄, 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐓𝐎 𝐄𝐍𝐃 𝐒𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐇 𝐒𝐔𝐃𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐓𝐏𝐒 𝐀𝐅𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝟏𝟓 𝐘𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐒

The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can move forward with ending… pic.twitter.com/6bYq5prNur

— M.A. Rothman (@MichaelARothman) July 30, 2026

For employers, churches, and local governments that rely on TPS holders, the fallout will be real and immediate, from lost workers to broken families. For the migrants themselves, many of whom have lived in the United States for years, the message is blunt: their fate now rests almost entirely on policy choices in Washington, not on legal protections a judge can enforce. Whether one cheers or fears Trump’s immigration agenda, this shift in the law shows how easily the system can close off review when Congress writes broad power into statute and the courts choose not to look behind the curtain.