A last-minute court ruling stops the U.S. government from ending deportation protections for South Sudanese nationals, reigniting debate over humanitarian immigration policy in America.

A U.S. federal judge has temporarily blocked the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudanese immigrants, delivering a crucial legal win for migrant families facing the threat of deportation in early 2026. The decision comes as immigration policy once again collides with humanitarian realities and constitutional scrutiny.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued an emergency order preventing the Trump administration from ending TPS protections that were scheduled to expire on January 5. The ruling followed an urgent lawsuit filed by South Sudanese nationals and an immigrant rights organization, arguing that the policy change was unlawful and dangerous.

TPS is one of the few immigration programs designed specifically to respond to humanitarian crises abroad. Ending it can have immediate consequences—loss of work authorization, legal status, and protection from removal.

Judge Kelley’s order ensures that hundreds of South Sudanese migrants can remain legally in the United States while the court reviews whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) acted within the law.

The lawsuit was brought by four South Sudanese TPS holders along with African Communities Together, a nonprofit advocacy group. Their legal argument centers on three core claims:

Judge Kelley agreed that allowing TPS to expire before resolving these claims would expose migrants to irreversible harm, including forced return to a country still plagued by violence and instability.

The move to terminate TPS originated with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who announced the decision in November. DHS argued that South Sudan no longer met the legal criteria for protection.

According to DHS, the decision was based on:

“With renewed peace in South Sudan, now is the appropriate time to end what was intended as a temporary designation,” a DHS spokesperson said prior to the ruling.

But critics say this assessment paints an overly optimistic picture.

South Sudan has struggled with instability since gaining independence in 2011. A civil war that erupted in 2013 killed an estimated 400,000 people, displaced millions, and devastated infrastructure.

Although a peace agreement was signed in 2018, violence has never fully ceased. Armed clashes, food insecurity, and political unrest continue across the country.

The U.S. State Department still warns Americans not to travel to South Sudan, citing armed conflict, crime, and kidnapping—facts central to the court’s concern.

According to court documents:

While the population is relatively small compared to TPS holders from Haiti or Venezuela, advocates stress that the impact is profound. Many TPS recipients have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade, built families, and contributed to local economies.

Ending TPS would mean:

South Sudan is not the only country affected. DHS has recently taken steps to end TPS for migrants from Syria, Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, prompting a wave of lawsuits across the country.

Legal experts say these cases could shape the future of:

The judge’s order does not permanently reinstate TPS, but it blocks its expiration while the case moves forward. Further hearings are expected in the coming months, and appeals are likely.

For now, South Sudanese TPS holders can:

This ruling highlights the fragile balance between immigration enforcement and humanitarian responsibility. As courts increasingly scrutinize TPS terminations, the outcome of this case could influence protections for vulnerable migrants nationwide.

For South Sudanese families, the decision offers more than a legal pause—it offers time, stability, and a chance to fight for their future.