Two US federal judges have cleared the way for the Donald Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals of South Sudan and Myanmar, rejecting legal efforts to preserve deportation protections for thousands of migrants.

The rulings, issued in Boston and Chicago on Friday, come after the US Supreme Court recently limited the ability of lower courts to block the administration from ending TPS designations. The decisions could affect about 232 South Sudanese nationals and nearly 4,000 people from Myanmar, according to Reuters.

What is Temporary Protected Status?

Temporary Protected Status is a US immigration programme that allows nationals of designated countries to remain legally in the United States when returning home is considered unsafe because of armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions.

TPS beneficiaries are generally protected from deportation and can obtain employment authorisation while the designation remains in effect.

The programme does not, however, provide permanent residency or citizenship.

Courts Reject Legal Challenge

In Boston, US District Judge Patti Saris rejected arguments from immigrant rights advocates seeking to prevent the termination of TPS for South Sudanese nationals.

The legal challenge followed a US Supreme Court decision that affirmed broad executive authority for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make decisions regarding TPS designations.

Advocates had argued that DHS lacked the authority to terminate the protections. Judge Saris rejected that interpretation, saying it would also undermine the department's longstanding authority to extend TPS when conditions warranted.

Hours later, US District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago reached a similar conclusion in the case involving Myanmar nationals.

South Sudan, Myanmar TPS

The DHS moved in November 2025 to terminate TPS for South Sudan and Myanmar.

South Sudan has been covered by TPS since 2011, with the designation linked to continuing conflict and instability in the country.

Myanmar's TPS designation followed the political turmoil that intensified after the 2021 military coup, which triggered prolonged instability and conflict.

The latest court decisions remove a major legal obstacle to the administration's plans to end those protections.

Supreme Court Decision Matters

The latest rulings are closely linked to a US Supreme Court decision in June concerning similar TPS protections for nationals of Haiti and Syria.

The Supreme Court's decision gave the federal government greater room to terminate TPS designations and restricted the ability of lower courts to intervene.

Following that ruling, lawyers representing immigrants argued that DHS had exceeded its authority by moving to terminate protections for South Sudanese and Myanmar nationals.

The judges, however, found that the Supreme Court's position allowed DHS to proceed.

Deportation Concerns Rise

Immigrant rights groups have warned that the rulings could leave TPS beneficiaries vulnerable to deportation once their protections formally expire.

Many affected migrants have lived and worked in the United States under TPS for years. The programme's termination could therefore have consequences not only for their immigration status but also for their employment and families.

During the legal proceedings, some beneficiaries had continued to live and work in the country under administrative stays that temporarily prevented the termination of their protections.

DHS Says More Terminations Possible

James Percival, General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, said the latest rulings leave only the planned TPS terminations for Ethiopian and Somali nationals blocked by court action.

The administration has argued that TPS designations are intended to be temporary and that the government should be able to determine when conditions in a particular country no longer justify continuing the protections.

The latest decisions mark another step in the Trump administration's broader effort to tighten immigration enforcement and reduce the number of temporary immigration protections available to foreign nationals in the United States.

For South Sudanese and Myanmar nationals covered by TPS, the immediate focus will now shift to the timelines for the termination of their protections and what immigration options may remain available to them.

The European Union is set to hold talks with a Taliban delegation in Brussels over the return of failed Afghan asylum seekers, a move that has reignited debate over the bloc’s migration policies and its engagement with Afghanistan’s de facto rulers. The discussions come as several European governments seek stricter measures to address irregular migration and increase deportations of migrants who have no legal right to remain in Europe.

Belgium has approved short-term visas for five Taliban representatives to attend the meeting. While EU officials insist that the talks do not amount to formal recognition of the Taliban government, human rights organizations have criticized the decision, arguing that it undermines the European Union’s stance on human rights and accountability.

The meeting is expected to focus on practical arrangements for returning Afghan nationals whose asylum applications have been rejected. European authorities say the discussions are necessary because Afghanistan remains a major source of asylum seekers across the continent.

According to Belgian officials, the visas granted to the Taliban delegation are valid only within Belgium and do not permit travel across the wider Schengen Area. Authorities also confirmed that the visas are limited to a single day and were issued following security assessments.

Migration Policy Takes Center Stage

The talks reflect growing pressure on European governments to tighten immigration controls amid rising public concern over migration. In recent years, several EU member states have pushed for stronger deportation mechanisms, particularly for individuals who have exhausted legal avenues to remain in Europe.

European Commission officials have argued that engagement with Taliban authorities is necessary to facilitate the return of migrants. Earlier this month, EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner stated that Brussels has limited options when dealing with Afghanistan and must engage with those currently exercising authority in the country.

Data from European agencies show that EU member states received nearly one million asylum applications from Afghan nationals between 2013 and 2024. Approximately half of those applications were approved during that period.

Rights Groups Object

The planned meeting has drawn criticism from human rights organizations, which say the EU risks compromising its principles by engaging with the Taliban while continuing to condemn its human rights record.

Human Rights Watch and other advocacy groups have warned that returning Afghans to a country facing a severe humanitarian crisis raises serious legal and ethical concerns. Critics argue that many Afghans continue to face economic hardship, food insecurity, and restrictions on basic freedoms under Taliban rule.

Since returning to power in 2021, the Taliban have imposed strict social regulations, particularly affecting women and girls. International organizations have repeatedly criticized restrictions on female education, employment opportunities, and access to public spaces.

Officials familiar with the discussions emphasize that the meeting is focused on migration management rather than diplomatic recognition. However, analysts note that direct engagement with Taliban representatives reflects the practical challenges European governments face in implementing deportation policies.

The issue has become increasingly sensitive across Europe, where migration remains a major political topic. Rising support for right-wing and anti-immigration parties in several countries has added pressure on governments to demonstrate tougher border and asylum policies.

The outcome of the Brussels talks could influence future EU policy toward Afghanistan and set a precedent for how European institutions engage with governments that lack formal international recognition. For now, the meeting highlights the difficult balance between migration management, diplomatic realities, and human rights concerns.

The proposed H-1B visa fee would have significantly increased costs for employers and applicants. The court ruling is expected to benefit Indian professionals, who account for nearly 70% of approved H-1B work visas.

A United States federal court has struck down former President Donald Trump’s proposal to impose a $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications, delivering a significant legal setback to the administration’s immigration agenda and offering relief to thousands of Indian professionals seeking employment opportunities in the country.

In a ruling issued on Monday, US District Judge Leo Sorokin held that the President did not possess the legal authority to introduce such a fee without approval from Congress. The decision effectively blocks a measure that would have dramatically increased the cost of hiring foreign skilled workers under the H-1B visa programme.

Court Questions Presidential Authority

In his 42-page judgment, Judge Sorokin concluded that the proposed fee amounted to a tax rather than a routine administrative charge. Under the US Constitution, the power to levy taxes rests with Congress unless lawmakers specifically delegate such authority.

The court found no provision in existing immigration laws that would allow the executive branch to unilaterally impose a fee of this magnitude on H-1B petitions.

“The President had no power or delegated authority to impose a tax on H-1B petitions,” the judge stated while rejecting the administration’s interpretation of federal immigration statutes.

The ruling reinforces the limits of presidential authority in matters involving taxation and immigration policy, areas where congressional approval remains central.

Legal Challenge by States

The lawsuit was filed in December by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general led by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The states argued that the administration had exceeded its powers by creating a substantial financial burden on employers and foreign workers without legislative backing.

According to court filings, the states contended that immigration policy changes of such scale require congressional action rather than executive orders or administrative directives.

Judge Sorokin largely agreed with that position, dismissing arguments that existing immigration laws granted broad enough powers to support the fee proposal.

Trump Criticises Court Decision

Reacting to the ruling, Trump criticised federal judges and accused the judiciary of obstructing his policy agenda.

“These federal judges are really giving us a hard time. It's really crazy what's going on with the court system. They're hurting our country very badly,” he said.

The administration had defended the proposal as part of broader efforts to reduce what it described as excessive dependence on foreign labour and to prioritise American workers.

Impact on Indian Professionals

The decision is particularly significant for Indian nationals, who remain the largest beneficiaries of the H-1B visa system.

Data from Pew Research shows that approximately 73% of approved H-1B applications in fiscal year 2023 were granted to workers born in India. Indian professionals have consistently received the majority of H-1B approvals for more than a decade, particularly in technology, engineering, finance and healthcare sectors.

Industry observers noted that the proposed $100,000 fee could have discouraged employers from sponsoring foreign workers and potentially reduced opportunities for skilled professionals seeking jobs in the United States.

The ruling removes that uncertainty, at least for now, and preserves the existing framework under which employers can continue filing H-1B petitions.

Why H-1B Matters

The H-1B visa programme allows US companies to hire foreign workers in specialised occupations that generally require a bachelor’s degree or higher qualification.

The visa is typically granted for an initial period of three years and can be extended for another three years. Major technology companies, healthcare providers and engineering firms rely heavily on the programme to fill specialised positions.

Economists and business groups have long argued that access to global talent helps companies remain competitive and supports innovation across industries.

What Happens Next

While the ruling blocks the proposed fee, it does not end the broader debate surrounding the H-1B programme. Immigration policy remains a politically contentious issue in the United States, and future administrations could pursue legislative changes through Congress.

For now, however, the court’s decision ensures that employers and skilled foreign workers, particularly Indian professionals, will not face the proposed $100,000 H-1B visa fee. The judgment also serves as a reminder that major changes involving immigration-related taxation require clear congressional authorisation before they can take effect.

Trump Reposts 'Gangsters with Laptops' Jibe on Indians, Birthright Citizenship

US President reignites row over citizenship policy, targets India and China in repost amid Supreme Court battle

US President Donald Trump reposted a fiery podcast clip from conservative host Michael Savage, labelling immigrants from India and China as "gangsters with laptops" over birthright citizenship. The move, shared just hours ago, stokes fresh debate on denying US citizenship to children of temporary visa holders or undocumented parents. Sources say it ties into Trump's executive order facing Supreme Court scrutiny.

Key Developments

Trump amplified Savage's rant on social media, quoting lines like: "A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring in their entire family from China, or India." The host claimed such migrants have "robbed us blind" and outdone mafia families in damage to America. No data backed the post's swipe at California's tech hiring trends, dominated allegedly by Indians and Chinese.

Policy Backdrop

Birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, grants automatic nationality to anyone born on US soil. Trump's order seeks to end this for kids of non-citizens on short-term visas or illegal stays. Legal challenges pile up, with the Supreme Court set to weigh in soon. Critics call it a direct assault on constitutional norms.

Official Reactions

White House officials dodged questions on the repost's tone, sources indicated. Savage, a Trump ally, doubled down on X, blasting courts for shielding "anchor babies." The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hit back, accusing Trump of peddling hate to derail reforms. "This rhetoric endangers communities," an ACLU spokesperson said.

Immigration Claims

The post alleges birthright rules fuel chain migration, straining welfare, healthcare, and jobs. It paints tech hubs like Silicon Valley as overrun by foreign talent from India and China, treating Americans as "second-class citizens." Reports note H-1B visas do favour Indian applicants, but experts dismiss broad "gangster" tags as baseless.

Public Backlash

Indian-American groups condemned the language as xenophobic. "It stereotypes hardworking professionals," said the Indian American Community Foundation in a statement. US conservatives cheered the repost, viewing it as bold talk on border security. Protests simmer in California over policy impacts.

Supreme Court Angle

Arguments rage in the top court on whether executive fiat can override the Constitution. Trump slammed judges for lagging "modern immigration patterns," pushing for a national vote instead. As per reports, a ruling could reshape millions of lives by year's end.

Future Outlook

Legal experts predict delays, with a decision possibly by mid-2026. Trump vows to tighten visas if victorious, eyeing H-1B curbs. For India, this flags risks to its vast US migrant workforce. Watch for more salvos as polls heat up—latest news today from this India news update keeps public interest high.

Shashi Tharoor Says India Has Right to Deport Illegal Migrants

Thiruvananthapuram: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Thursday backed the Indian government’s measures against people living illegally in the country, saying it is the government’s “duty” to protect national borders and regulate immigration effectively. His remarks come amid ongoing discussions over the deportation of illegal migrants and India’s decision to host former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Tharoor’s balanced position underscores the fine line between enforcing the law and upholding humanitarian responsibilities in international diplomacy.

India Must Strengthen Border Security, Says Tharoor

Speaking to reporters in Thiruvananthapuram, Tharoor emphasized that unauthorized entry and overstaying visas highlight weaknesses in India’s immigration framework.

“If people are entering the country illegally, that’s our failure,” Tharoor noted, urging stricter border control and efficient monitoring.

He further added that the government has every right to take lawful action against individuals who violate immigration norms, stressing that such measures are part of responsible governance rather than political discretion.

According to Tharoor, maintaining border integrity is vital not only for national security but also for managing internal resources and promoting fairness in the country’s immigration system.

Humanitarian Approach to Sheikh Hasina’s Stay Praised

Tharoor also expressed support for India’s decision to allow Sheikh Hasina to stay temporarily, calling it a gesture of India’s longstanding friendship and humanitarian character. He said forcibly sending her back would have been politically and morally inappropriate, given her deep historical ties with India.

“The decision to let Sheikh Hasina remain reflects India’s compassion and responsibility toward a trusted ally,” Tharoor said, adding that such complex international cases must be handled with legal and ethical sensitivity.

He clarified that deportation and extradition decisions involve multiple legal frameworks and bilateral considerations, and the government must carefully evaluate each case before acting.

Balancing Law and Humanity in Immigration Policy

Tharoor’s comments come at a time when immigration and deportation issues have taken center stage in political debate. His statement signals support for firm action against lawbreakers while advocating a measured, humane approach toward political figures seeking refuge.

Analysts suggest that Tharoor’s position may help bridge political divides, emphasizing India’s dual identity as a law-abiding and compassionate democracy.

As the government continues to address illegal migration, Shashi Tharoor’s nuanced stance offers a narrative that aligns national interest with humanitarian responsibility—an equilibrium increasingly vital in today’s globalized world.