If it feels like déjà vu, that’s because it is. A Biden-appointed federal judge is once again standing in the way of a key Trump administration immigration policy—this time blocking efforts to end temporary protected status (TPS) for thousands of Ethiopian migrants.
Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts issued a temporary block on the Department of Homeland Security’s decision, arguing the agency didn’t follow proper procedures when moving to cancel TPS for more than 5,000 Ethiopians. The policy would have made those individuals eligible for deportation within 60 days—part of President Donald Trump’s broader push to rein in what many see as an overextended immigration system.
Murphy’s ruling didn’t sit well with conservatives, and frankly, not hard to see why. Critics argue the judge is overstepping his authority—again. Senator Eric Schmitt didn’t mince words, calling Murphy a “rogue judge” and arguing the decision shouldn’t even be subject to judicial review under federal immigration law.
Legal experts echoed that frustration. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out that repeated lower court interventions like this create a system that simply “cannot function.” Translation: when trial-level judges keep inserting themselves into areas where the law says they shouldn’t, things start to break down.
And here’s where it gets even more interesting—this isn’t Murphy’s first run-in with higher authority. The Supreme Court has already reversed him twice in similar immigration-related rulings, even issuing a rare 7-2 clarification rebuking his actions. That’s not exactly subtle.
Despite that history, Murphy insists he’s not defying the Supreme Court this time, arguing their previous decisions don’t directly apply to this case. Critics, however, aren’t buying it. Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan pointed out that the statute clearly limits judicial review on TPS decisions—and that the Supreme Court has already signaled where it stands.
Still, Murphy appears undeterred.
This latest move adds to a growing list of rulings where the judge has blocked Trump administration policies, including a recent decision targeting changes to federal vaccine requirements. That ruling also sparked backlash, with critics accusing him of selectively applying the law—and even “the science”—to fit a preferred outcome.
At the heart of it all is a bigger question: who actually sets policy—the elected administration or unelected judges? It’s a debate that’s not going away anytime soon.
But one thing is clear: the Trump administration isn’t backing down from its immigration agenda, and with continued legal battles, the fight over border security and executive authority is far from over.
And if history is any guide, this isn’t the last time we’ll be hearing about it.
