Obama-appointed judge lifts block on Somali deportations after Supreme Court ruling

A federal judge in Boston appointed by President Obama cleared the way for the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for Somali nationals, lifting a stay she had previously imposed and acknowledging that the Supreme Court’s recent decision left her no room to keep the protections in place.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs dropped her administrative stay on August 14, 2026, citing the high court’s ruling in Mullin v. Doe as binding precedent that strips lower courts of the authority to second-guess the Department of Homeland Security when it decides to terminate TPS designations.

The decision marks a significant legal victory for the administration’s broader immigration enforcement agenda, and a telling moment when even a judge with every ideological reason to resist felt compelled to follow the law as written.

What the Supreme Court decided, and why it matters here

The Supreme Court ruled in June in Mullin v. Doe that the TPS statute bars judicial review of certain non-constitutional decisions by the executive branch, including the decision to end TPS designations. That ruling specifically addressed protections for Syrian and Haitian migrants, but its logic applies across the board.

Judge Burroughs wrote that she was “bound… to view things through the Mullin prism.” That single phrase captures the shift. Before Mullin, lower courts had wide latitude to freeze the administration’s TPS terminations with injunctions and stays. After Mullin, the legal ground collapsed beneath those challenges.

The Supreme Court has delivered several major wins for the administration on asylum and deportation policy this year, and the Somali TPS case follows the same trajectory: the judiciary stepping back and letting the executive branch exercise the authority Congress gave it.

The plaintiffs’ case, and why it fell short

Four Somali nationals and two advocacy groups, whose names do not appear in available reporting, had filed a federal lawsuit in Boston challenging the administration’s decision to terminate Somalia’s TPS designation. They argued that conditions in Somalia had not improved enough to justify ending protections and that the decision was motivated by racial animus.

Judge Burroughs did not dismiss those concerns lightly. She acknowledged that the plaintiffs had made a “convincing showing” that they would suffer “irreparable harm” if TPS was revoked. That language suggests the judge took the human stakes seriously.

But convincing evidence of harm was not enough. Just The News reported that Burroughs found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the legal threshold required for an injunction. In her written ruling, the judge was blunt about the discrimination claim:

“Though Plaintiffs lay out a strong case for why the at-issue statements were racist… after Mullin, which included a constitutional race-discrimination claim, the Court cannot discern a path to concluding that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of this claim.”

Read that again. The judge acknowledged the plaintiffs’ arguments about racist statements. She still concluded the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, foreclosed the claim. That is a judge following precedent even when she might prefer a different outcome.

How many people are affected

USCIS sources told Fox News Digital that 2,471 Somali nationals currently hold TPS in the United States, while another 1,383 have applied. Just The News reported a lower figure of approximately 700 Somali TPS holders expected to be directly impacted by the ruling. The discrepancy is not explained in available reporting, but it may reflect the difference between total TPS holders and those who lack any other lawful basis to remain in the country.

Either way, the numbers are modest compared to the broader scope of the administration’s TPS rollback. Business Insider reported that the Trump administration has moved to end TPS designations for 13 countries total, affecting hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals.

The four African nations where TPS has been terminated, Somalia, Cameroon, Ethiopia, and South Sudan, represent one slice. The remaining nine include Afghanistan, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Myanmar. Each designation was originally granted because of armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary conditions in the home country.

Federal courts have already cleared the administration to end TPS protections for Burma and South Sudan, and the Somalia ruling extends that pattern.

The administration’s rationale

Then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated in January that conditions in Somalia had improved enough to end the humanitarian protections. The TPS statute, created by Congress in 1990, was designed as a temporary measure, a point the administration has pressed repeatedly. Countries were supposed to stabilize. Protections were supposed to expire.

In practice, TPS designations for some countries lasted decades. Somalia’s is among the longest-running. The administration’s position is straightforward: if conditions have improved, the statute’s purpose has been served, and the designation should end.

Critics counter that Somalia remains dangerous and that returning TPS holders face genuine peril. The plaintiffs in the Boston case cited statements by President Trump as evidence that the termination was driven by bias rather than policy judgment. The Washington Examiner reported one such statement attributed to the president in the plaintiffs’ filings: “The Somalians, what they’ve done to Minnesota, the Somalians, crooked as h***. I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you.”

Judge Burroughs weighed those statements. She still concluded that Mullin blocked the legal path the plaintiffs needed to prevail.

What the ruling means going forward

The practical effect is clear: immigration officials can now proceed with ending TPS for Somali nationals. Those who hold no other lawful immigration status face potential deportation. The ruling does not set a new legal standard, it applies the one the Supreme Court already established, but it removes one of the last judicial obstacles to the administration’s Somalia TPS termination.

The broader pattern is worth noting. Across multiple courts and multiple TPS designations, the administration has steadily prevailed since the Mullin decision. Judges who once issued stays and injunctions are now lifting them, bound by the same precedent.

That is how the system is supposed to work. Congress writes the statute. The executive exercises the discretion the statute grants. The Supreme Court interprets the law. And lower courts follow.

The Boston ruling on Somali TPS fits a growing list of legal victories for the administration on immigration enforcement. The Fifth Circuit recently ended in-state tuition breaks for illegal immigrants in Texas, another decision that reinforced the principle that immigration law means what it says.

The open questions

Several details remain unclear. No reporting identifies the two advocacy groups that joined the lawsuit. The effective date for the end of Somalia’s TPS designation has not been publicly announced. And the specific conditions the administration cited as having improved in Somalia have not been detailed in the available record.

Those gaps matter. TPS holders deserve to know their timeline. The public deserves to see the factual basis for the administration’s determination. Transparency strengthens the policy, and makes it harder for critics to claim the decision was arbitrary.

What is not in doubt is the legal foundation. The Supreme Court spoke. A federal judge, one appointed by a president of the opposing party, listened. The stay is gone.

Temporary was always supposed to mean temporary. It took the Supreme Court to remind the lower courts, but the message finally landed.