Judge Targeted for Impeachment Clears Somalia TPS End
Burroughs found the plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on their due process and equal protection claims, including allegations of discrimination.
The Obama-appointed federal judge Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) threatened to impeach earlier this month over her handling of the Somalia Temporary Protected Status (TPS) case has now ruled for the Trump administration.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs on Aug. 14 denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and lifted the administrative stay that had temporarily prevented the administration from terminating Somalia’s TPS designation.
As Legal Insurrection previously reported, Ogles announced plans to seek Burroughs’ impeachment after she issued another temporary stay while considering amended constitutional claims. Ogles accused her of “Judicial Activism,” while a spokesman said she was defying the Supreme Court and obstructing President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.
On Monday I will file Articles of Impeachment against Judge Allison Burroughs for her unconstitutional act of Judicial Activism!!!
Enough is enough, Americans First NOT 3rd world migrants. https://t.co/r50Q8Wor8n— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) August 1, 2026
The irony now is that the judge critics portrayed as a rogue activist ultimately cleared the administration to proceed.
Burroughs found the plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on their due process and equal protection claims, including allegations of discrimination based on race and national origin. She also rejected their argument that the Homeland Security secretary lacked authority to terminate TPS after immigration functions were transferred to DHS.
The Supreme Court’s June decision in Mullin v. Doe played a major role.
Mullin held that the TPS statute generally bars judicial review of the administration’s decisions to terminate country designations and rejected a similar race-based equal protection challenge. Burroughs concluded that she remained able to consider constitutional claims, but said the Supreme Court’s treatment of the race claim largely dictated the result.
Burroughs didn’t hide her frustration when it came to the Supreme Court’s reasoning.
Discussing statements attributed to Trump about Haitians in Mullin, Burroughs wrote that despite what she called “undisguised racial animus,” the majority “somehow concluded” they showed the administration’s general immigration position rather than an unconstitutional racial motive.
But she also acknowledged she was bound by the ruling.
“Bound as it is to view things through the Mullin prism,” Burroughs wrote, the court could not find statements concerning Somalis sufficient to distinguish the case from the Supreme Court precedent.
The national-origin discrimination claim was somewhat different. Burroughs noted that Mullin did not address the national-origin theory and said the unsettled law left the plaintiffs unable to show the likelihood of success required for an injunction. However, that issue could remain a target in any appeal.
Burroughs also acknowledged that the plaintiffs had made a “convincing showing” that ending TPS could cause irreparable harm. But likelihood of success on the merits, she noted, is the “sine qua non” of preliminary injunctive relief.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) says Somalia’s TPS designation ended Aug. 14. Employment authorization documents in categories A12 and C19 issued under the program are also no longer valid.
The national-origin claims give the plaintiffs a path to appeal, but it is up to the courts to take them seriously enough to stop the clock.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Residence in the United States is a privilege, not a right, and can be revoked at any time and for any reason, or no reason at all. And if the law says otherwise, then “the law is an ass.”
You are wrong. Revoking a residence permit is a government action, and is therefore subject to the general rule that any government action that is taken for an unconstitutional reason is itself unconstitutional. There is no such thing as a government action that can be taken for any reason whatsoever.
When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
–SAMUEL JOHNSON
Irrelevant. She was in absolutely no fear of impeachment. She simply did the right thing — both times. Andy Ogles is a dammed liar and a clown.
She did the right thing on the second try. The first was just her political inclinations issued as a legal decision.
This is the way
If the threat of impeachment influenced her decision to suddenly follow the law, as it seems, then she should be impeached just for that. Show no tolerance for corrupt leftist (but I repeat myself (rimshot)) judges!
The “threat” had absolutely no influence on her, even assuming she was aware of it. She was in no danger, and she knew it. Ogles is a filthy liar.
She did not “suddenly” decide to follow the law, she was following it all along.
Ogles is no liar, but you are a leftist loon ball.
We seem to be reaching the tipping point on many of the delay tactics of activist leftists to drag out the process of mass deportation. As the cases filed in response to Trump Admin EO and regulatory changes early in Administration are for the most part coming up empty in Appeals CT and SCOTUS the # of tools/tactics available for leftist obstructionism becomes much smaller.
The leftists knew they’d likely lose most of these but it was worth it due to chance of prevailing and b/c it delayed the application till much later into Trump 2.0. That’s why we’ve gotta rack up the wins, implement the policies ruthlessly and as widely as possible in the remainder of Trump 2.0 then make.sure we get at least a one term successor who will not only continue them but ramp up the effort to remove the 25 million (+/-) illegal aliens. Hopefully we get two consecutive terms out a successor to complete the task but even then over an additional 8 years to deport probably 20 million + aliens is a tall order; 2.5 million per year.
Trump must act ruthlessly against lawlessness and on Iran. Alas, he has been playing TACO Don too long, too much.
She should be impeached anyway. She should never have issues the stay or entertained the premise at all due to Mullins. IMHO.
Bullshit. Plaintiffs can still bring constitutional challenges to government decisions, so she had to consider them. That justified the stay. Having considered it, she saw that while they may have a case they have a low likelihood of success, so they don’t get an injunction.
The claim that the stay defied a SCOTUS decision is simply an outright lie.
To claim the stay did not defy the SCOTUS decision is a black faced lie.
So I have a question for the legal minds on here. The Supreme Court ruled in another case that district judges have no jurisdiction in TPS cases. So when she issued a stay why did anyone listen? Why not just say Sorry you don’t get to do that. And go on with your deportations as if she did not exist.
That is not true. Those who making this claim are lying their lying faces off. Congress can’t prevent courts from hearing constitutional challenges. They can limit courts’ jurisdiction over statutory claims, as they did here, but that has no effect on constitutional claims.
“‘The Supreme Court ruled in another case that district judges have no jurisdiction in TPS cases’
That is not true. Those who making [sic] this claim are lying their lying faces off. Congress can’t prevent courts from hearing constitutional challenges.” [bold added]
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong….
That just shows you were not paying attention and have no idea whatsoever about this subject, so you should keep silent about it.
Do you imagine the Supreme Court just decided that courts have no jurisdiction?! On what basis could it possibly have decided that? That basic logic should be enough to tell you that you don’t know what’s going on.
The Supreme Court ruled that since Congress had stripped the courts of jurisdiction over TPS, they could not hear any challenge to TPS decisions, no matter how much merit they might have — except constitutional challenges, because Congress can’t stop those.
The courts can not legal defy Congress. The issue was a never a constitutional question, and the district court did not have the authority to rule as she did. She has made a claim of animus, yet has no evidence for it. She does not have judicial temperament and should be removed from the bench.
People like you need to go to their room and shut up.
“so you should keep silent about it.” Um….no. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
You responded to a point about a Supreme court ruling with a non-sequitur about congress. Was their such a SCOTUS ruling? If so, then your statement that “that’s not true” is…well…not true. If there wasn’t such a ruling, then you didn’t prove your point by invoking a statement about Congress’ powers.
And despite what you learned about debating on the playground in the third grade, “shut up” is not a valid argument in any disagreement.