The administration’s effort to end Somali Temporary Protected Status hit a new legal roadblock when a Massachusetts district judge issued an administrative stay, and that move has set off a sharp public clash between DHS lawyers and conservative legal voices over whether lower courts are sidestepping Supreme Court precedent.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs entered an administrative stay after plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and an emergency motion that reframed the challenge around the Fifth Amendment. The order declares the TPS termination “void” for now while the judge evaluates whether the constitutional claims warrant a longer pause. The move came fast, days after the Supreme Court’s decision in Mullin v. Doe was expected to limit court interruptions of TPS rollbacks.
The Mullin ruling was supposed to clear the way for the administration to wind down TPS for several countries, but the plaintiffs retooled their case around due process and equal protection. African Communities Together led the filing, arguing constitutional problems rather than statutory ones. By pivoting to Fifth Amendment claims, they sought a legal route Mullin did not explicitly foreclose.
DHS General Counsel James Percival reacted sharply, framing the stay as part of a pattern of judicial resistance to the administration’s immigration agenda. He went public on social media, calling the order an example of judges blocking policy. He wrote, “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.”
The department points to earlier stays entered by other district judges that the First Circuit later reversed after relying on Mullin. Judges Brian Murphy and Patti Saris issued administrative stays for Ethiopia and South Sudan terminations that the appellate court vacated. The administration argues those reversals showed how Mullin should be applied, and it views Burroughs’ new approach as an end-run around that precedent.
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan weighed in with a blunt critique of the amended complaint and the stay, laying out his view that the filing fails on multiple legal grounds. He said the stay itself is novel in form and suggested the claims do not clear the high bar for interim relief. He wrote, “I looked at the amended complaint in the Somalia TPS case. The district judge has entered a novel ‘administrative stay’ to sort out the claims. She has declared the TPS termination ‘void’ for now, while deciding whether any of the claims can justify a more permanent pause.”
Wessan pressed his point further about the substance of the claims and the standard for emergency relief, forecasting an appellate reversal if courts apply Mullin’s logic. He warned the complaint cannot justify the requested relief and urged that the stay be vacated. He said, “Even if this was a fresh lawsuit without the baggage, the claims cannot justify any relief, much less meet the high bar for interim relief. This is very bad. I hope that, with time to review, Judge Burroughs vacates her administrative stay to allow the correct status quo to continue.”
The plaintiffs’ amended complaint accuses the administration of acting with a predetermined, racially motivated intent when it moved to end Somali TPS. They point to a November 2025 Truth Social post by President Trump announcing the end of TPS months before DHS completed its review and argue that timeline shows the decision was effectively preordained. The filing also cites past presidential remarks, quoting terms used about Somali immigrants such as “criminals,” “gang members,” and “low IQ,” along with statements that he doesn’t “want them in our country” and to “send them back.”
Those assertions come from the plaintiffs’ filing and remain contested in court; they are not independent factual findings. News outlets sought comment from African Communities Together, and no response was reported. The administration has largely confined its public response to Percival’s characterization of the litigation as obstruction.
At the legal core is whether constitutional claims will survive the scrutiny that Mullin shut down for statutory challenges. The plaintiffs are betting that due process and equal protection claims present a separate path that keeps the case alive. The administration and its allies, including state solicitors general, are betting those constitutional hooks cannot meet the standards for emergency stays.
TPS exists to protect nationals from countries with armed conflict, natural disaster, or similar extraordinary conditions, allowing them to live and work temporarily in the United States. The administration argues TPS has morphed into a de facto pathway to permanent residency in some cases and is trying to restore statutory limits. Opponents say revocation would expose many vulnerable people to deportation and ignore ongoing dangers abroad.
The next chapter is likely at the First Circuit, which already reversed earlier district-level stays after Mullin. If the appellate court treats the constitutional framing as distinguishable from Mullin, the stay could stand and the litigation could drag on for months. If the court sees Burroughs’ maneuver as an attempt to dodge the Supreme Court’s ruling, it may remove the stay and allow the Somalia termination to proceed.
This clash is more than another docket entry. The administration has publicly named specific judges it sees as resisting the high court, and that direct confrontation signals a broader fight over how courts apply precedent to immigration policy. The coming appeals will test whether lower courts can use constitutional labels to extend stays that Mullin aimed to curtail.
