This was surprising to see.
President Donald Trump secured another significant courtroom victory Wednesday after a federal appeals court sided with his administration in two major immigration cases, clearing the way for the government to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from Ethiopia and South Sudan.
The rulings mark the latest legal win for Trump’s immigration agenda and reinforce a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits the ability of lower courts to block TPS terminations.
The cases reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit after two federal district judges temporarily halted the administration’s plans to end TPS protections for thousands of migrants from the two African nations.
However, the appeals court reversed those decisions.
The three-judge panel included Judges Seth Aframe and Julie Rikelman, both picked by former President Joe Biden, along with Judge Joshua Dunlap, who was appointed by President Donald Trump.
In nearly identical opinions, the panel concluded that the lower courts relied on legal arguments that the Supreme Court had already rejected in its recent Mullin v. Doe decision.
According to the appeals court, the Supreme Court made clear that federal judges generally cannot stop the Department of Homeland Security from ending Temporary Protected Status based solely on non-constitutional legal challenges.
The judges cited the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Congress limited judicial review of TPS decisions, giving the executive branch broad authority over whether those temporary protections should continue.
Supporters of the ruling say the decision confirms that immigration policy remains primarily the responsibility of the executive branch rather than federal district courts.
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan praised the decision, saying the First Circuit faithfully followed Supreme Court precedent.
He argued that the ruling represents another major legal victory for President Trump and reinforces the principle that district judges should not substitute their own judgment for decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security.
Wessan also said the litigation is moving closer to its conclusion because the Supreme Court has already established that most disputes over TPS terminations belong outside the federal district courts.
The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the outcome, describing it as a victory for both common sense and the rule of law.
A DHS spokesperson emphasized that Temporary Protected Status was created as a short-term humanitarian program—not a permanent immigration benefit.
The agency argued that Congress intended TPS to provide temporary relief during extraordinary circumstances and said the administration is restoring the program to its original purpose after years of repeated extensions.
The lawsuits were filed by African Communities Together, a New York-based immigrant advocacy organization, along with several TPS recipients from Ethiopia and South Sudan.
The plaintiffs argue that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution by ending the protections. They contend the agency failed to properly evaluate conditions in both countries and allege the decisions were influenced by unlawful discrimination.
Last week, U.S. District Judges Brian Murphy and Patti Saris temporarily blocked the administration from ending TPS while considering whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their lawsuits to pursue constitutional claims.
Although the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mullin v. Doe largely eliminated statutory challenges to TPS terminations, it left open a narrow path for constitutional claims to proceed.
Supporters of the administration argue those constitutional claims have not yet been established and therefore should not have prevented the government from carrying out its policy.
Wessan said the district judges were free to consider requests to amend the complaints but argued that the administration should have been allowed to move forward while that process unfolded.
The appeals court agreed, allowing the administration’s termination of TPS for Ethiopia and South Sudan to proceed unless future constitutional claims ultimately succeed.
The rulings also represent another setback for the lower court judges, whose earlier decisions sparked sharp criticism from Trump administration officials.
Following the original injunctions, DHS General Counsel James Percival accused the district courts of disregarding Supreme Court precedent, arguing the judges improperly delayed the administration’s lawful authority to enforce federal immigration policy.
For President Trump, the latest decisions add to a growing series of courtroom victories on immigration and further strengthen his administration’s ability to implement its border and enforcement agenda while legal challenges continue through the federal court system.
