← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

African Communities Together v. Noem (TPS South Sudan 2025)

No. 1:25-cv-13939 District · Active Active
Court
Federal Court
mad
Judge
Patti B. Saris 42
Filed
Dec 22, 2025
Judge (CL)
Patti B. Saris 42
Filed (CL)
Dec 22, 2025
CL Status
active

Case Overview

South Sudanese nationals currently relying on temporary protected status to live and work in the U.S. sued the Trump administration over its termination of TPS for South Sudan.


The Application

History

Plaintiffs challenge the TPS termination as procedurally deficient and substantively unsupported, arguing insufficient notice, inadequate comment period, and lack of reasoned explanation in the administrative record. The government asserts statutory discretion to terminate TPS based on changed country conditions in South Sudan.

The Conclusion

Litigation is ongoing; the court has not yet issued a ruling on the merits of the TPS termination challenge.

Federal Court TMR-4cb25d37 TPS Cancellation Jul 16, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

South Sudanese nationals currently relying on temporary protected status to live and work in the U.S. sued the Trump administration over its termination of TPS for South Sudan.

Overview

Non-profit organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security over the cancellation of the termination of Somalia’s temporary protected status designation.

Issue

Whether the Trump administration's termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudanese nationals complied with Administrative Procedure Act notice and comment requirements and statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Rule

Under INA § 244, the Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate TPS only after providing notice and an opportunity for the public to comment. Administrative actions are subject to APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, and agency decisions must be supported by adequate record evidence.

Analysis

Plaintiffs challenge the TPS termination as procedurally deficient and substantively unsupported, arguing insufficient notice, inadequate comment period, and lack of reasoned explanation in the administrative record. The government asserts statutory discretion to terminate TPS based on changed country conditions in South Sudan.

Conclusion

Litigation is ongoing; the court has not yet issued a ruling on the merits of the TPS termination challenge.

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support