A federal judge in Massachusetts has again blocked the Biden administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for Somalia by imposing an administrative stay after plaintiffs rewrote their case to press constitutional claims, setting up a clash with the First Circuit’s recent handling of similar TPS terminations and drawing sharp criticism from Justice Department and state legal officials.
Judge Allison Burroughs’ order keeps Somalia’s TPS protections in limbo even as the First Circuit has leaned on the Supreme Court’s Mullin decision to limit lower-court interference in TPS terminations grounded in non-constitutional challenges. That legal backdrop matters because the appeals court threw out stays for Ethiopia and South Sudan after Mullin, so this stay looks like a direct attempt to change the frame of litigation rather than win on the merits.
DHS General Counsel James Percival reacted sharply, signaling bureaucratic frustration with the judge’s move. “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 wrote on X. From a conservative perspective, that kind of repeated judicial intervention smells like activism, not a dispassionate application of the law.
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan has also been blunt about the legal posture of the amended complaint. “I looked at the amended complaint in the Somalia TPS case,” Wessan wrote on X. “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.”
The administration’s critics say the complaint is an effort to dodge Mullin by recasting familiar statutory arguments as constitutional ones. Plaintiffs point to President Donald Trump’s November 2025 Truth Social post announcing an end to TPS months before DHS finished a review, and they claim that preannouncement deprived Somali TPS holders of the fair process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. That narrative depends heavily on political commentary rather than traditional administrative-law proof.
Plaintiffs further allege Equal Protection violations and cite inflammatory statements attributed to the former president, calling Somali immigrants “criminals,” “gang members,” and “low IQ,” and quoting him as saying he doesn’t “want them in our country” and to “send them back.” They write, “These statements evince the Administration’s racist and xenophobic motivations to exclude Somali people from the country. At the same time, the Administration has expressed preferences for white immigrants as ‘nice’ and welcome in the U.S. and created protections for white Afrikaner refugees from South Africa.” That line of attack shifts the fight from statutory dispute to motive-based politics, which should be proven with clear, concrete evidence if it is to override agency discretion.
Wessan has labeled the district court’s remedy legally unsound, arguing the order “turns the law upside down,” writing that four of the lawsuit’s five claims are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Mullin and describing the remaining claim as “frivolous.” He added, “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,” Wessan wrote. “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.”
From the Republican angle, the heart of the problem is procedural: courts should not rewrite rules to keep a protection in place when an administration follows statutory review processes. If the goal is to challenge the agency’s decision, that fight belongs at the merits on a proper record, not locked into an emergency pause that sidesteps the standards Mullin established. Recasting ordinary statutory complaints as constitutional claims to obtain a stay sets a dangerous precedent for judicial overreach.
Burroughs has overseen the Somalia litigation since earlier this year and first entered an administrative stay on March 13, halting the termination while the case proceeds. The plaintiffs’ strategy of refashioning their arguments to survive Mullin looks designed to delay final resolution and push the dispute into political theater rather than legal clarity, which is exactly what critics say the administrative and judicial systems should resist.
Appellate courts will almost certainly be asked to weigh in given the high stakes and the conflicting signals from judges and agencies. What conservatives will watch for is whether higher courts will reaffirm Mullin’s limits on lower-court intervention and restore ordinary administrative order, or allow district courts to expand emergency relief in ways that effectively freeze federal policy choices pending long litigation.
Darnell Thompkins is a Canadian-born American and conservative opinion writer who brings a unique perspective to political and cultural discussions. Passionate about traditional values and individual freedoms, Darnell’s commentary reflects his commitment to fostering meaningful dialogue. When he’s not writing, he enjoys watching hockey and celebrating the sport that connects his Canadian roots with his American journey.