Somali Nationals Sue to Keep Temporary Protected Status with Backing from African Groups

(BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS) — Immigrant rights advocates filed a federal lawsuit on March 9, 2026, in Boston federal court seeking to block the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for Somalia on March 17, 2026.

The suit challenges the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s decision to terminate the program and asks the court to halt or overturn the termination so protections remain in place while the case proceeds.

Four Somali nationals and two advocacy groups, African Communities Together and Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, brought the case. The plaintiffs say the termination would strip Somali nationals of protection from removal and their ability to work legally in the United States.

The lawsuit alleges the decision is procedurally flawed, driven by unconstitutional racial bias against non-white immigrants, and not based on objective country conditions. It targets DHS’s stated rationale for ending the designation and argues the department failed to follow governing requirements tied to conditions in Somalia.

Outgoing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced the TPS termination in January 2026, saying conditions in Somalia had improved sufficiently despite ongoing conflict between Somali forces and al-Shabaab militants. DHS did not comment on the lawsuit.

Temporary Protected Status is a humanitarian program authorized under INA § 244 (8 U.S.C. § 1254a). It provides deportation protection and work authorization to eligible nationals from designated countries when conditions such as conflict or disaster prevent safe return.

Somalia’s TPS designation affects nearly 1,100 Somalis in the U.S. The termination date places a near-term deadline on beneficiaries who rely on the program to live and work legally.

The legal framework also includes a regulation requiring that termination decisions hinge on home-country conditions, not domestic political considerations, under 8 CFR § 244.4. The plaintiffs cite that standard as central to their claims, arguing the Somalia decision did not rest on the required kind of objective assessment.

In their court filing, the plaintiffs argue DHS ignored persistent violence and instability in Somalia, including ongoing conflict involving al-Shabaab. They contend the department reached a preordained outcome and then justified it with an assessment that does not reflect continued insecurity.

The lawsuit also alleges discriminatory statements and animus influenced the policy, raising equal protection arguments under the Fifth Amendment. It ties those claims to statements attributed to President Trump, including calling Somalis “garbage”, “low IQ people” who “contribute nothing”, and demanding they be sent “back to where they came from”.

Omar Farah, executive director of Muslim Advocates, criticized the termination in blunt terms. “The termination of TPS for Somalia is racism masking as immigration policy,” Farah said.

Plaintiffs also cast the Somalia termination as part of a broader pattern of rollbacks affecting other nationalities. The lawsuit points to Haiti, which it says has over 350,000 affected, and Syria, which it says has about 6,000 affected, as comparisons in arguing Somalia fits a larger agenda to end TPS protections across multiple countries.

They also point to the administration’s litigation posture, saying it plans a U.S. Supreme Court appeal to enforce terminations. The filing frames that approach as evidence of a wider push rather than a country-specific decision rooted in changing conditions on the ground.

The case arrives amid a broader enforcement climate that has drawn protests and heightened scrutiny of federal actions in Somali American communities. Minnesota has become a focal point, given its large Somali American population and the intensity of recent enforcement operations reported there.

Trump cited fraud investigations tied to pandemic-era programs as justification for deploying about 3,000 immigration agents in Minnesota. The justification included no evidence linking the fraud allegations to TPS holders.

The operations sparked protests, and the reported enforcement activity coincided with the deaths of two U.S. citizens during operations. The lawsuit’s context links those events to concerns that Somali communities have been targeted through rhetoric and enforcement decisions that, in the plaintiffs’ view, reflect bias rather than individualized evidence.

Community leaders and Rep. Ilhan Omar condemned the rhetoric as harmful stereotyping. The lawsuit situates those reactions alongside its constitutional claims, arguing that public statements and enforcement posture can inform how courts evaluate whether animus influenced government decisions.

Legal experts have also emphasized limits on the government’s discretion to terminate the program. Professor Ana Pottratz Acosta of the University of Minnesota Law School said TPS terminations must be based solely on home-country conditions under 8 CFR § 244.4, not domestic politics or fraud allegations, and that prior Trump-era attempts were blocked by courts.

Those earlier court interventions, cited by experts, form part of the backdrop for why the plaintiffs believe a federal judge could step in again. The challengers argue that even when DHS has authority to end a designation, it must follow required procedures and ground the decision in the legally relevant factors.

DHS has not commented on the lawsuit, but it previously described TPS as “never intended to be a de facto amnesty program.” That framing has been a recurring theme in debates over whether the program functions as a short-term humanitarian protection or as a longer-term status for people who live and work in the United States for years.

For Somali nationals covered by the program, the termination date carries immediate consequences. The lawsuit argues that without court intervention, beneficiaries could lose protection from deportation and work authorization, and that the disruption would ripple through families and communities.

The case, filed in Boston, now moves into a phase that typically centers on emergency requests and a fast timetable. No rulings have been issued as of March 10, 2026.

The next steps often include motions for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, followed by briefing schedules and arguments over the administrative record underlying DHS’s decision. In disputes over TPS terminations, courts commonly examine whether the agency complied with required procedures and whether its rationale matches the legal standard tying the decision to country conditions.

Judges may also weigh the lawsuit’s Fifth Amendment equal protection claims, which turn on whether the plaintiffs can show unconstitutional discrimination influenced the policy. The plaintiffs argue the alleged statements attributed to Trump reflect animus toward non-white immigrants and that the Somalia TPS termination cannot be separated from that context.

At the same time, DHS is expected to defend the termination as a lawful exercise of executive authority under the TPS statute and related regulations. The agency’s decision, announced by Noem in January 2026, asserted improvement in Somalia, while acknowledging ongoing conflict involving Somali forces and al-Shabaab militants.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison indicated readiness to challenge unlawful actions. His stance adds to the political and legal pressure around enforcement actions in the state, even as the Boston lawsuit focuses on the separate question of whether DHS lawfully terminated Temporary Protected Status for Somalia.

For now, Somali nationals and the advocacy organizations backing the case are asking the court to preserve the status quo through March 17, 2026 and beyond, arguing that the termination rests on an improper process and unconstitutional bias rather than the country-conditions analysis required by law.