TPS for South Sudan:
Case in Abeyance — Postponement Stands Pending SCOTUS
A federal court has granted a formal postponement of the Trump administration’s termination of TPS for South Sudan. On April 9, 2026, the court denied the government’s motion to stay that order. In April 2026, the case was placed in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decisions in the consolidated Haiti and Syria TPS cases (Miot v. Trump and Dahlia Doe v. Noem). The postponement remains fully in effect during the abeyance.
Case in abeyance — April 2026: The South Sudan TPS case has been placed in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s rulings in Miot v. Trump (Haiti) and Dahlia Doe v. Noem (Syria), which were heard by the Court on April 29, 2026. The February 12 postponement order remains fully in effect during the abeyance. Nothing will proceed in the South Sudan case until the Supreme Court rules, likely by the end of June 2026. South Sudanese TPS holders retain all protections. Follow updates from ACT and CUSP.
Motion to stay denied — April 9, 2026: Judge Saris denied the government’s motion to stay the postponement order pending appeal, rejecting all of DHS’s arguments for a second time. The postponement remains fully in effect. The government has appealed to the First Circuit (No. 26-1254). A motion to dismiss remains pending in the district court. South Sudanese TPS holders retain all protections.
Formal postponement granted — February 12, 2026: A federal judge granted a formal postponement of agency action after finding plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits. The government’s motion to stay that order was subsequently denied on April 9, 2026. The postponement stands. DHS cannot move forward with the termination unless the First Circuit or Supreme Court orders otherwise. View the postponement order →
Important: This page provides general information about the South Sudan TPS litigation and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. If you are a South Sudanese TPS holder with questions about your specific situation, please consult a qualified immigration attorney. African Communities Together (ACT) may be able to connect you with legal resources.
- African Communities Together (ACT) — organizational plaintiff
- Four individual South Sudanese TPS holders — filed as a class action
- Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security
- The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
- United States of America
- South Sudan — terminated November 6, 2025; original expiration January 5, 2026 (postponed by court order)
- Approximately 232 South Sudanese TPS beneficiaries and applicants
South Sudan was first designated for TPS in 2011 following its independence from Sudan after a decades-long civil war. It has received consistent redesignations ever since due to ongoing gender-based and sexual violence, armed conflict, arbitrary arrests, torture and physical violence, and other extraordinary circumstances. The country continues to face active armed conflict across multiple regions, widespread displacement affecting millions, severe food insecurity, and the breakdown of essential infrastructure and services.
This case is part of the Trump administration’s coordinated campaign to eliminate TPS protections for Black, Asian, Arab, and immigrant communities of color. The complaint highlights that the termination was pre-ordained and was not based on an objective review of country conditions. It also highlights the administration’s preference for white immigrants and refugees as evidence of discriminatory intent.
- Declare the termination of TPS for South Sudan unlawful
- Set aside or vacate the termination of South Sudan’s TPS designation
- Stop all government agencies and employees from taking steps to implement the termination
The South Sudan TPS fight is a direct expression of the Immigrant Movement’s North Star — the Five Freedoms. South Sudanese TPS holders have built lives, raised families, started businesses, and strengthened communities across the United States. This case fights for their Freedom to Stay in the places they call home, their Freedom to Work with dignity and security, and their Freedom to Thrive — to make decisions about their own lives, futures, and communities. The administration’s refusal to conduct a genuine country conditions review, reliance on pretextual justifications, and pattern of terminations targeting communities of color are not just legal violations. They are an attack on the vision of a movement that believes all people have inherent dignity and value.
The lawsuit challenges the termination of TPS for South Sudan on two grounds: violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violations
Constitutional claims
South Sudan’s 14-year designation reflects the ongoing reality on the ground: a country still experiencing active armed conflict across multiple regions, widespread displacement affecting millions, severe food insecurity, and the breakdown of essential services. The administration’s decision ignored this record entirely. The court has twice agreed there is a likelihood of success on the merits — first in granting the postponement (February 12) and again in denying the government’s motion to stay (April 9). The April 9 ruling also addressed DHS’s new argument about database “hits”: the court found that because government investigators found no actual evidence of fraud or public safety concerns, DHS’s use of that database search to justify termination was further evidence of pretext. The case is now in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Haiti and Syria cases.
- South Sudanese TPS holders currently retain their status, work authorization, and protection from deportation and detention by court order. The February 12 postponement order remains fully in effect even though the case is in abeyance. You can use the February 12 court order to demonstrate your continued legal status to employers, landlords, or government agencies.
- TPS beneficiaries’ work authorization remains valid even if the card appears expired. EADs with expiration dates of November 3, 2023, May 3, 2025, or November 3, 2025 are extended by court order.
- For information on knowing and exercising your rights in encounters with immigration enforcement in the U.S., review the content available at wehaverights.us, prepared by We Have Rights and available in a variety of languages.
- Understand that if you leave the U.S. because the termination of TPS for South Sudan does take effect at some point, you may not be able to lawfully reenter the U.S. on TPS status, even if a court subsequently reinstates TPS for South Sudan.
- Before considering self-deportation using the CBP Home app, review information about your rights, such as this content from the National Immigration Law Center.
For some people, planning ahead for the possibility of immigration enforcement can help to restore a sense of personal agency in the face of uncertainties and risk. This is called “emergency planning.” Even with the court’s postponement in place and the case in abeyance, it is wise to be prepared — the situation can still evolve depending on the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Haiti and Syria cases.
You can learn more about emergency planning through these resources:
For support with mental-health-related needs during this time of uncertainty, here are some potential resources:
The case is in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decisions in Miot v. Trump (Haiti) and Dahlia Doe v. Noem (Syria). The postponement order stands. Follow ACT and CUSP for the most up-to-date information as the case proceeds. Email CUSP at info@wearecusp.org to stay updated.