A federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary protected status for more than 5,000 Ethiopians living in the United States, the latest in a string of rulings by the same Biden-appointed jurist that have drawn sharp rebukes from legal scholars, elected officials, and the Supreme Court itself.
Judge Brian Murphy found that the Department of Homeland Security did not follow proper protocols when it moved to cancel TPS for the Ethiopian nationals and did not meet the necessary conditions under the law to do so legally. Without the block, DHS's decision would have made the migrants eligible for deportation in 60 days.
The ruling lands in an already volatile legal landscape. Murphy has become one of the most active lower-court obstacles to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement agenda, and his track record of being overturned raises a pointed question: how many times does a trial judge get to defy higher courts before the system treats it as a problem?
Murphy's clashes with the administration did not begin with TPS. Last year, he issued a series of rulings blocking DHS from deporting migrants to countries other than their nations of origin. The Supreme Court reversed him, twice. In one of those instances, the justices issued a rare 7-2 clarification stating that Murphy had flouted the high court's own order.
A 7-2 rebuke is not a close call. It is the kind of margin that signals a judge has strayed well outside the boundaries the law permits. The Supreme Court has shown little patience for lower courts that ignore its directives, regardless of the policy area.
Even after those reversals, Murphy doubled down. He issued a new order reasserting his earlier position in the deportation case. An appeals court blocked that order last month.
And immigration is not the only front. Also last month, Murphy temporarily blocked Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s vaccine overhaul. The judge has positioned himself as a one-man checkpoint on multiple administration priorities.
The TPS case was brought by an immigration advocacy group and three Ethiopians with protected status. The plaintiffs alleged that DHS violated immigration laws and acted with animus by unconstitutionally discriminating against Ethiopian migrants. DHS had been canceling TPS designations for a string of countries as part of the administration's broader effort to dramatically narrow the program's use.
Murphy, in his opinion, acknowledged the Supreme Court's recent emergency rulings involving TPS for some countries, rulings that green-lit cancellation in certain cases while holding off in others. But he argued he was not bucking the high court. Fox News Digital reported that Murphy wrote in his order:
"Note that the Supreme Court gave no explanation for its recent stays of related, but not identical, district court orders.... Nor did the Supreme Court explain its subsequent decision not to stay the district court orders in two consolidated,"
Murphy concluded there was "no reason to assume" the Supreme Court's actions in those other TPS cases controlled his ruling. Legal critics found that reasoning unpersuasive at best.
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan laid out the problem bluntly on social media. He noted two obstacles Murphy chose to dismiss:
"One big problem for Murphy is the statute: It explains TPS determinations aren't reviewable. Another is the Supreme Court, which has stopped similar orders twice!"
Wessan added: "He finds neither statute nor SCOTUS stops him. I'm unconvinced." That skepticism is well-founded. When the statute itself says TPS determinations are not subject to judicial review, and the Supreme Court has twice intervened in related cases, a trial judge who plows ahead anyway is making a statement about his own authority, not about the law.
The pattern of lower courts losing at the Supreme Court and then picking the same fights has become a recurring feature of politically charged litigation in recent years. Murphy's record fits that template precisely.
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., did not mince words. He wrote on X that Murphy lacked the authority to issue the order at all:
"This Rogue Judge lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to issue this order. The assault on the rule of law continues."
Schmitt's point goes beyond policy disagreement. Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold legal question, whether a court even has the power to hear a particular type of case. If the federal statute governing TPS explicitly bars judicial review of termination decisions, then Murphy's ruling is not merely wrong on the merits. It is an exercise of power the law does not grant him.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley echoed the concern, pointing to his own prior writings on Murphy. Turley posted on X that "this system cannot function with such rogue operators at the trial level." That is a strong statement from a legal scholar who has spent decades analyzing judicial conduct across the political spectrum.
The word "rogue" keeps surfacing, from a senator, from a law professor, from a state solicitor general. When critics across different branches and institutions converge on the same characterization, it is worth taking seriously. The Supreme Court has shown a willingness to vacate lower-court rulings that exceed judicial authority, and Murphy's latest order may well follow the same path.
The Department of Justice could appeal Murphy's ruling. Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to both the DOJ and Murphy's chambers for comment, though no responses were noted in the reporting.
If past is prologue, the administration will appeal, and Murphy will likely lose again. The question is how much damage is done in the meantime. Every temporary block delays enforcement, creates legal uncertainty for DHS, and sends a signal to illegal immigrants and advocacy groups that the right judge in the right district can stall federal immigration policy indefinitely.
That dynamic is not unique to Murphy. District judges across the country have used nationwide injunctions to freeze executive action on everything from immigration to public health. But Murphy stands out because of the frequency of his interventions, the breadth of the policy areas he has targeted, and the severity of the rebukes he has received from higher courts. The broader tension between the judiciary and the executive branch on immigration shows no sign of cooling.
The TPS program was designed as a temporary measure, a pause on deportation for nationals of countries experiencing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. The Trump administration's effort to wind down TPS designations for multiple countries reflects a straightforward policy judgment: that "temporary" should mean temporary, not permanent. More than 5,000 Ethiopians now remain in legal limbo because one judge in Massachusetts decided DHS got the paperwork wrong.
The issue here is not whether Ethiopian TPS holders face difficult circumstances. It is whether a single trial judge, one who has been reversed by the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, overruled by an appeals court, and criticized by legal experts for exceeding his jurisdiction, should be the one deciding the fate of federal immigration policy.
Murphy was confirmed after a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on April 17, 2024. He has been on the bench barely a year. In that time, he has blocked deportation policy, blocked vaccine policy, and now blocked TPS termination. Each time, the legal reasoning has drawn serious challenge. Each time, higher courts have either reversed him or appear positioned to do so.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly cleared paths through lower-court obstacles when the law requires it. Murphy's latest order will likely meet the same fate.
A system that lets one district judge override the elected branches on immigration, public health, and deportation, and then shrug off correction from the highest court in the land, is not a system that serves the rule of law. It serves the judge.
