Massachusetts Federal Judge Blocks Ethiopian Deportations After High Court Stripped His Authority

Here’s what you need to understand about what just happened in Massachusetts. A Biden-appointed federal judge named Brian Murphy decided he knows better than the Supreme Court. Again.

Murphy issued an administrative stay Friday blocking the Trump administration from ending temporary protected status for Ethiopian nationals. This comes right after the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling in Mullin v. Doe that explicitly narrowed lower courts’ authority to interfere with Department of Homeland Security decisions on TPS. The message from the highest court in the land was crystal clear. Yet here we are.

The case is African Communities Together v. Mullin, and Murphy’s justification is that he needs time to consider whether plaintiffs can pursue constitutional claims in light of the Supreme Court’s June ruling. That’s a fancy way of saying he’s buying time to keep doing exactly what the Supreme Court told him to stop doing. You know what this reminds me of? A teenager who gets grounded but sneaks out anyway because they found a technicality in mom’s wording.

DHS General Counsel James Percival didn’t mince words. He accused Murphy of “mutiny” against the Supreme Court. Strong language, but is it wrong? When you’re a district court judge and the Supreme Court hands down a decision that limits your power in these exact situations, then you turn around and exercise that power anyway, what else would you call it?

This isn’t even Murphy’s first rodeo with immigration enforcement. The article mentions criticism from May, suggesting this judge has a history of clashing with ICE and immigration authorities. There’s a pattern here, and it’s worth paying attention to.

The Supreme Court’s decision was significant. Six justices said lower courts need to back off from second-guessing DHS on TPS designations and terminations. That’s the executive branch doing its job, making policy decisions about who gets temporary protection and who doesn’t. The judiciary isn’t supposed to run immigration policy from the bench. We have separation of powers for a reason.

But Murphy is the second judge in Massachusetts alone to block these Trump administration efforts. Think about that. Two judges in one state deciding they can override both the executive branch and the Supreme Court’s recent guidance. This isn’t judicial review. This is judicial activism dressed up in legal procedure.

Temporary protected status was never meant to be permanent. The clue is right there in the name. It’s temporary. These protections were designed for genuine emergencies, not as a backdoor immigration program that lawyers can extend indefinitely through friendly courts. Ethiopian nationals, Haitian migrants, Syrian refugees, they’ve all been swept into this system that nobody seems able to turn off.

The Trump administration is trying to restore some sanity to immigration enforcement. The Supreme Court gave them the green light. And still, district court judges are throwing up roadblocks. How’s that supposed to work exactly?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth nobody wants to say out loud. When judges appointed by one administration systematically obstruct the policies of another administration, especially after the Supreme Court has weighed in, we’re not talking about neutral arbiters of the law anymore. We’re talking about political actors in robes.

The constitutional claims Murphy wants to consider? That’s the escape hatch. There’s always another legal theory, another procedural delay, another reason why this particular situation is somehow different from what the Supreme Court just ruled on. It never ends.

Americans voted for change on immigration. The Supreme Court affirmed the executive branch’s authority. But two judges in Massachusetts think they know better than both. That’s not how this is supposed to work.

Related: The Rebirth of Penn Station Could Finally Honor a President Who Actually Built Things