South Sudanese TPS: Why a Judge Blocked the Sudden Termination
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
South Sudanese nationals in the United States recently received a critical reprieve from the federal court system. On December 30, 2025, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley stepped in to stop a plan by the Department of Homeland Security. This plan aimed to end the Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for hundreds of people from the world’s youngest nation. The judge issued an emergency order that prevents a fast cutoff of these legal protections while a larger court battle continues (cbsnews.com).
The decision provides immediate relief to individuals who were facing a January 5, 2026, deadline to leave the country. For many in the African diaspora, this legal move represents more than just a paperwork delay. It is a vital shield against being forced back into a country that the U.S. State Department still considers extremely dangerous. The ruling highlights the ongoing tension between current immigration policies and the humanitarian needs of people who have built lives in America over the last decade (apnews.com).
The Long Road to Protection
The history of protection for South Sudanese migrants began long before their nation achieved independence. In 1997, the U.S. Attorney General designated Sudan for TPS because of the Second Sudanese Civil War. That conflict was a brutal struggle between the north and the south that lasted for over twenty years. It resulted in the deaths of approximately 2 million people and displaced millions more from their homes (combonimissionaries.org). Many people fled to the United States during this era to escape the violence.
When South Sudan finally gained its independence on July 9, 2011, it was a moment of great hope. Nearly 99 percent of voters chose to secede from Sudan (wikipedia.org). However, this new sovereignty created a legal problem for those holding Sudanese TPS who were now citizens of a different country. To address this, the Obama administration officially designated South Sudan for its own TPS on October 13, 2011. This ensured that the newly recognized citizens could remain legally in the United States (dhs.gov).
The promise of a peaceful new nation did not last long. By December 2013, a political power struggle between President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar plunged the country into another civil war. This conflict led to an estimated 400,000 deaths and created one of the largest refugee crises on the African continent (columbia.edu). Because of these “extraordinary and temporary conditions,” the U.S. government repeatedly extended TPS for South Sudanese nationals (dhs.gov). This allowed them to work and live without the constant fear of being sent back to a war zone.
South Sudanese Populations in the U.S. (2025)
Source: DHS / Research Notes
A Sudden Shift in Policy
Under the current administration of President Donald Trump, the Department of Homeland Security took a different approach. On November 5, 2025, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that TPS for South Sudan would be terminated. The government argued that the conditions that originally justified the protection had improved significantly. Officials claimed that the large-scale civil war had ended and that the South Sudanese government was ready to reintegrate its citizens (cbsnews.com, cbsnews.com).
The announcement gave migrants only 60 days to prepare for departure. This sudden pivot caused widespread panic in the community. Many of the 232 current beneficiaries have lived in the United States for over a decade. They have established families, careers, and deep community ties. The termination order felt like a betrayal of the humanitarian spirit that defined the program for years. It mirrors the struggles for survival reminiscent of strategies for Blacks in the Upper South who navigated hostile laws to keep their families together.
To encourage people to leave, the DHS introduced an exit incentive program. This program offered a $1,000 stipend and free travel assistance for those who agreed to “self-deport” via a government application. While the government marketed this as a “dignified way” to leave, advocates warned of the legal traps involved. Accepting the money often required signing away the right to future legal hearings. Furthermore, it could trigger a 10-year bar on returning to the United States (cbsnews.com, washingtonpost.com). This strategy aimed to save the government money, as a formal deportation can cost over $17,000 per person (washingtonpost.com).
The Legal Resistance
The community did not accept the termination quietly. On December 22, 2025, a non-profit group called African Communities Together, along with four South Sudanese individuals, filed a lawsuit. They argued that the decision by Secretary Noem was “arbitrary and capricious.” In legal terms, this means the government made a decision without looking at the actual facts on the ground. The lawsuit pointed out that the government ignored its own warnings about the safety of South Sudan (apnews.com).
One of the strongest pieces of evidence in the case is the State Department’s Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory. This is the highest warning level possible. It is reserved for countries with active war zones and high rates of kidnapping and violent crime. For Level 4 countries, the government even suggests that travelers should write a will and leave DNA samples with doctors before going (columbia.edu). The plaintiffs argued it is contradictory to say a country is safe enough to end TPS while also warning citizens that it is too dangerous to visit (aclusocal.org).
The lawsuit also claims that the decision was motivated by racial discrimination. This argument relies on the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While many people think of the Fifth Amendment only as the right to remain silent, it also protects people from unfair treatment by the federal government. The plaintiffs believe the administration is targeting non-European countries for TPS termination while ignoring similar conditions in other nations. This mirrors systemic legal battles often seen in cases regarding racial inequality in education and other civil rights areas where the government is held to account for biased decision-making.
The Cost of Removal vs. Incentive
DHS claims the incentive program saves taxpayers roughly 70% per person.
Understanding the Judicial Check
Judge Angel Kelley’s decision to block the termination is a temporary but powerful move. By granting an emergency injunction, she ensures that no one loses their legal status while the court reviews the evidence. This judicial oversight is a critical part of the American legal system. It prevents the executive branch from making life-altering changes without a clear and logical reason (cbsnews.com).
This case follows a pattern set by previous legal battles. In 2018, a case called *Ramos v. Nielsen* successfully blocked the government from ending TPS for several other countries. In that case, the court found evidence that political appointees had ignored the advice of experts who said the countries were still dangerous. The court also looked at derogatory statements made by leadership as evidence of “racial animus,” or racial prejudice (americanimmigrationcouncil.org, aclusocal.org). The current lawsuit against Secretary Noem uses a very similar strategy to protect South Sudanese migrants.
The role of the judiciary is to ensure that agencies like the DHS follow the Administrative Procedure Act. This law requires agencies to provide a “satisfactory explanation” for their actions. They cannot simply change a long-standing policy because of a shift in political winds if the facts do not support that change. Because the situation in South Sudan remains volatile, the judge found it necessary to halt the government’s plans until a full trial can happen (jdsupra.com, lawgratis.com).
The Human Reality on the Ground
While the lawyers argue in court, the South Sudanese community remains in a state of uncertainty. There is a significant difference between the 232 people who have TPS and the total 5,000 South Sudanese nationals living in the United States. Many of these individuals arrived as refugees or received asylum, which are more permanent forms of protection (columbia.edu). However, those relying on TPS are the most vulnerable to sudden shifts in federal policy.
The gap in these numbers also reflects the high cost and difficulty of applying for TPS. Many eligible people may have chosen not to register because they feared giving their information to a hostile administration. Others may have arrived after the specific cutoff dates required for eligibility. This situation is similar to how post-Civil War Reconstruction failed to provide lasting safety for the formerly enslaved because the laws were often applied unevenly or were eventually rolled back by those in power.
For those currently protected, the risk of returning is not just about a lack of jobs. South Sudan continues to struggle with ethnic conflict and severe food insecurity. The nation is often ranked as one of the most dangerous places in the world. If the court eventually allows the termination to proceed, these individuals will be sent back to a place where they have no safety net and where violence is a daily reality (theeastafrican.co.ke, columbia.edu). The current court order is the only thing standing between them and that dangerous future.
South Sudan TPS Key Milestones
A Future in the Balance
The legal fight over South Sudanese TPS is far from over. Judge Kelley’s order is just the beginning of what could be a long journey through the federal court system. The government is expected to appeal the decision, and the case could eventually reach higher courts. For now, however, the beneficiaries can breathe a small sigh of relief. They can continue to work and support their families while the legal arguments are heard (cbsnews.com, apnews.com).
This case serves as a reminder of the power of the African diaspora when it organizes and uses the legal system to fight for its rights. By partnering with groups like African Communities Together, the South Sudanese community has shown that it will not be easily pushed aside. They are standing up for the principle that humanitarian protection should be based on real safety, not political convenience. Their struggle is part of a broader history of Black people in America fighting for recognition and legal standing (aclusocal.org).
As the nation watches the headlines, it is important to remember the people behind the numbers. These are neighbors, coworkers, and friends who have escaped some of the worst violence of the 21st century. Their lives depend on the court’s ability to look past the politics and see the human cost of ending their protection. The “history behind the headlines” shows that while the world’s youngest nation continues to struggle, its people in America are finding their voice and fighting for their place (combonimissionaries.org, columbia.edu).
About the Author
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.
