A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama issued a sweeping decision this week halting the Trump administration’s plan to revoke the protected legal status of over 500,000 migrants. The ruling, handed down by Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts has sparked significant criticism from conservative leaders and immigration enforcement advocates, who argue the decision undermines both border security and the rule of law.
The ruling came in response to a challenge against President Donald Trump’s efforts to end the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) of individuals from countries no longer deemed dangerous by the U.S. government. These protections, initially granted on humanitarian grounds, were designed to be temporary but have remained in place for decades in some cases.
Judge Talwani’s decision blocks the Trump administration’s revocation of TPS for migrants from El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua—countries whose nationals have lived in the United States under this status for years. According to government data, more than half a million foreign nationals stand to benefit from the ruling, remaining shielded from deportation despite the Trump administration’s determination that conditions in their home nations have improved.
In her ruling, Judge Talwani wrote that the Trump administration’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious,” claiming that the policy change failed to sufficiently account for the consequences on TPS holders and their families. Her opinion also suggested that the administration’s rationale lacked a sufficient evidentiary foundation—a claim that Trump officials firmly dispute.
Conservatives point out that the judge’s track record reflects a progressive judicial philosophy. Judge Talwani previously drew national attention when she sided with school administrators who disciplined a 12-year-old boy for wearing a T-shirt that read, “There Are Only Two Genders.” That case, which many saw as a violation of the student’s First Amendment rights, ignited fierce debate about political bias in public education and the judiciary’s role in protecting free speech.
Critics of the latest ruling argue that Judge Talwani ’s decision demonstrates a continued pattern of judicial activism that caters to leftist causes. They note that the TPS program, while humanitarian in its intent, was never meant to provide indefinite residency or a pathway to citizenship.
“This is a blatant example of an unelected judge overruling the will of the people,” said one Trump administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The law clearly grants the executive branch authority to make decisions regarding protected status based on current conditions in foreign countries. This decision is not about law—it’s about ideology.”
The Trump administration had announced in 2024 its intent to phase out TPS for countries no longer experiencing the extraordinary conditions that initially justified the designation. Department of Homeland Security officials said conditions in Central America and
Nepal no longer met the statutory requirements for TPS, emphasizing that these countries had made significant progress in recovery and stability. Officials argued that continuing TPS indefinitely transforms a temporary measure into a de facto amnesty program.
Judge Talwani’s ruling, however, places a nationwide injunction on that plan, allowing more than 500,000 migrants to remain in the country while litigation continues. The decision effectively stalls the administration’s immigration enforcement agenda and undercuts efforts to restore legal clarity to what critics call an abused immigration loophole.
President Trump, who has repeatedly pledged to restore law and order at the border and eliminate unconstitutional overreach, is expected to appeal the ruling. Conservative legal scholars have already flagged what they consider serious judicial oversteps in Casper’s interpretation of executive authority.
Supporters of stricter immigration enforcement argue that this ruling sends the wrong message internationally, inviting more illegal migration and further encouraging foreign nationals to overstay their welcome. “When you protect hundreds of thousands of people based on old data, you’re not just freezing immigration enforcement—you’re rewarding dysfunction,” said a former senior official at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Now, with her latest decision shielding over half a million foreign nationals from deportation, Casper faces renewed accusations of ideological partisanship from conservative voices who view the judiciary as increasingly hostile to common-sense policies and constitutional governance.
“This is about more than immigration,” said a legal analyst aligned with conservative groups. “This is about activist judges inserting themselves into policy debates and using the bench to obstruct lawful executive authority. Judge Casper is using her gavel to advance progressive political outcomes, not enforce the Constitution.”
The ruling’s timing is also notable, coming just as President Trump gains momentum heading into the heart of the 2026 election cycle. With immigration policy polling as one of the top concerns among Republican and Independent voters, this court ruling is likely to become a flashpoint issue in upcoming debates and campaign stops.
The decision may also deepen frustration among law-abiding immigrants who followed legal pathways and waited years for approval, only to see long-term illegal residents receive continued protection through judicial intervention.
While the Biden administration previously sought to expand TPS and scale back deportations, the Trump administration has aggressively reversed those measures since retaking office in January 2025. Trump’s approach has been characterized by restoring enforcement priorities, cutting off funding to sanctuary cities, and reinforcing the border wall.
Trump officials have signaled they will continue working through the courts to reassert the federal government’s authority over immigration enforcement. “The American people elected a president to enforce immigration law—not an unelected judge,” one senior White House aide stated. “We will appeal this, and we will win.”
With immigration expected to remain a defining issue in the coming months, this decision adds another chapter to the ongoing tug-of-war between an assertive Trump administration and a federal judiciary still shaped by Obama-era appointees. For conservatives, the ruling represents exactly what they’ve warned about: progressive judges obstructing immigration enforcement and ignoring the will of the American electorate.