American Court Order Stops Immediate Deportations of South Sudanese

(WASHINGTON DC) – A United States federal judge has temporarily stopped a move by President Donald Trump to end temporary protected status for South Sudanese immigrants, allowing hundreds of people to continue living and working legally in the United States while the case is reviewed.

The decision affects South Sudanese nationals who were due to lose their legal protection on 6 January 2026. About 300 South Sudanese citizens currently live and work in the United States under the programme or have pending applications. Without the court order, they would have faced the risk of deportation once the protection expired.

Civil rights organisations filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Homeland Security in late December. In their complaint, they argued that the decision to end the protection breached administrative rules and was unconstitutional. The groups said the move unfairly targeted immigrants from non white and non European backgrounds.

United States District Judge Angel Kelley, sitting in Massachusetts, issued an order that temporarily prevents the federal government from starting deportation proceedings against South Sudanese nationals while the court considers the case. In her ruling, the judge said the consequences of ending the protection were serious and wide reaching and required careful examination. She added that the policy change could cause harm that cannot be reversed for the affected migrants.

The Department of Homeland Security criticised the ruling in a statement, accusing the judiciary of interfering with presidential authority. A senior department official said temporary protected status had been misused in the past and claimed it allowed criminals and security threats to remain in the country, although no evidence was provided.

The department also stated that conditions in South Sudan had improved. It referred to what it described as renewed peace efforts, steps towards the safe return of citizens and better diplomatic relations. The department said the protection was always meant to be temporary and argued that the time had come to end it.

International observers have challenged that assessment. United Nations experts have warned that years of weak governance have left government and opposition forces divided. They said this has resulted in the presence of armed groups across parts of the country, raising concerns about security and stability.

South Sudanese nationals became eligible for temporary protected status in 2011, the year the country gained independence. Since then, South Sudan has faced repeated conflict and economic hardship. Many basic services remain limited, and the country depends heavily on foreign aid. Recent cuts in international assistance have increased pressure on households and public services.

Food insecurity remains a major concern. Monitoring agencies have reported that many South Sudanese face hunger, and some conflict affected areas are close to famine conditions. These challenges continue to affect daily life and economic prospects for communities across the country.

One of the groups behind the lawsuit questioned how United States authorities could describe South Sudan as safe when official travel advisories warn against travel to the country. The group said the policy change puts vulnerable people at risk.

Some critics in South Sudan believe the decision was politically motivated. They linked it to South Sudan’s earlier refusal to accept certain deportees from the United States as part of a wider migration arrangement. At least eight men were deported to South Sudan from the United States earlier in the year.

The Trump administration has sought to roll back several immigration protections that allow foreign nationals to remain and work legally in the United States. Temporary protected status has already been ended or reviewed for large groups from countries such as Venezuela and Haiti. Protections for migrants from Ethiopia, Cameroon, Afghanistan, Nepal, Burma, Syria, Nicaragua and Honduras are also under review.

For South Sudan, the outcome of the case matters beyond immigration policy. Many families depend on money sent home by relatives abroad, and any sudden loss of legal status could affect household incomes and add pressure to an already fragile economy.