Federal Courts Clash with Trump Administration over Temporary Protected Status Terminations
The Trump administration's aggressive campaign to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations and deport hundreds of thousands of migrants has collided with a series of major legal challenges, setting up a high-stakes constitutional clash between the executive branch and the federal judiciary. The latest flashpoint has erupted in Massachusetts, where a federal judge has issued a new administrative stay blocking the termination of Somalia's TPS designation.
The Somalia TPS Administrative Stay and Constitutional Claims
On Friday, July 31, 2026, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs (an Obama appointee) issued a fresh administrative stay preventing the Trump administration from ending TPS protections for Somali nationals. The ruling came just one day after African Communities Together and other plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and emergency motion.
The new lawsuit was specifically rewritten around constitutional claims under the Fifth Amendment, in an effort to bypass the Supreme Court's June 2026 ruling in Mullin v. Doe. In Mullin, the Supreme Court sharply limited the ability of lower federal courts to block TPS terminations based on statutory or administrative (non-constitutional) claims. Relying on Mullin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had recently thrown out similar administrative stays that had blocked the administration's TPS terminations for Ethiopia and South Sudan.
However, the plaintiffs in the Somalia case argue that their new complaint presents a fundamentally different case based on constitutional violations of due process and equal protection:
- Due Process: The plaintiffs argue that the decision to revoke Somalia's TPS was "predetermined," pointing to a November 2025 Truth Social post by President Trump announcing the end of Somalia's TPS months before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had completed its legally mandated review process.
- Equal Protection: The complaint alleges racial and national-origin discrimination, citing past remarks by President Trump describing Somali immigrants as "criminals," "gang members," and "low IQ," and contrasting this with the administration's support and fast-tracked protections for white Afrikaner refugees from South Africa.
DHS Backlash and Accusations of Judicial Activism
Judge Burroughs' administrative stay has sparked a furious backlash from the Trump administration, highlighting escalating tensions between federal executive officials and the judiciary. DHS General Counsel James Percival publicly blasted Burroughs on social media, accusing her of deliberate obstruction:
"Judge Allison Burroughs just entered yet another order preventing the termination of Somalia TPS. There is no serious debate about what is going on in these cases — defiance, obstruction, and delay."
Percival and other administration officials have accused a select group of liberal-led district judges of engaging in "judicial activism" to systematically sabotage the president's immigration and deportation agenda. However, advocates for the plaintiffs argue that the administrative stays are essential safeguards to ensure the administration abides by the rule of law and the constitutional guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
As the litigation proceeds, the Somalia TPS case will serve as a crucial test of whether the administration's unilateral executive actions can be held accountable under constitutional standards despite recent Supreme Court rulings expanding executive power.