A federal judge in Massachusetts issued a temporary order preserving Temporary Protected Status for Ethiopian nationals, setting up a direct clash with a recent Supreme Court decision that narrowed lower court authority over TPS challenges. The ruling came as plaintiffs pivoted their legal strategy toward constitutional claims after the high court limited Administrative Procedure Act challenges. The Department of Homeland Security pushed back loudly, accusing the judge of defying the Supreme Court and reviving controversy over an earlier deportation flight order. Another district judge in the same court issued a similar pause on TPS termination for South Sudan, deepening the standoff.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy entered an administrative stay in African Communities Together v. Mullin to keep protections in place for Ethiopians while the court decides whether constitutional claims can proceed. Murphy is a Biden-appointed jurist, and his order keeps the status quo while lawyers reshape their arguments in response to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. That decision, Mullin v. Doe, sharply limited lower courts’ power to hear APA-based challenges to DHS decisions about TPS. With the APA path constrained, plaintiffs retooled their case to focus on constitutional issues they hope will survive scrutiny.
The Justice Department’s response was immediate and sharp, with DHS General Counsel James Percival publicly denouncing Murphy’s move and tying it to an earlier controversial order. “Remember when that district judge rerouted a plane with child rapists headed for South Sudan? The judge made ICE land in Djibouti to face Malaria and terrorist rocket attacks from Yemen,” Percival wrote on X. “Fun fact: it was the very same Judge Brian Murphy who entered a lawless TPS order today!” The forceful language reflects Republican criticisms that some judges are operating beyond their proper role and jeopardizing executive policy.
The dispute dates back to December 2025 when then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem concluded that conditions in Ethiopia no longer justified TPS and moved to terminate the designation. Noem set a 60-day wind-down, which would have ended protections on Feb. 13, 2026, but that timeline halted when Murphy first intervened. Earlier this year Murphy sided with challengers and blocked the termination after finding they were likely to succeed on procedural grounds. Those APA-based findings were precisely the type of rulings the Supreme Court later limited when it decided Mullin v. Doe.
After the Supreme Court’s decision, the legal landscape shifted fast because the ruling cast doubt on the APA claims that underpinned the earlier injunction. The high court left open whether constitutional claims might still be heard in lower courts, so plaintiffs amended their filings to emphasize those arguments. Murphy’s latest administrative stay keeps Ethiopians’ status unchanged while the constitutional question is litigated. That procedural dance illustrates how quickly strategy changes when the Supreme Court redraws the rules.
At almost the same moment, Senior U.S. District Judge Patti Saris issued a separate administrative pause preserving TPS protections for South Sudan while she considers whether plaintiffs may amend their complaint. Saris said her order was simply meant to temporarily maintain the status quo while the court considers the case and was “not a ruling on the merits.” Both stays were narrow and procedural, but to critics they signify lower court resistance to the Supreme Court’s guidance and the administration’s policy choices.
The tandem rulings prompted a chorus of conservative voices calling for a firmer response from the executive branch. “These Democrat operatives in robes do not have the power to do this,” Mike Davis, a conservative legal activist and founder of the Article III Project, wrote on X. “The Supreme Court just made that crystal clear. So it’s time to ignore these clearly lawless orders.” Those comments reflect a Republican view that the president should enforce the law and not be hamstrung by what some call activist judges.
Echoing that tone, Ann Coulter weighed in with a blunt take on the judicial pattern, arguing for stronger executive action. “These puny little district court judges have been overruled so many times by the supreme court, especially on immigration, I think it’s time for the president to take his constitutional oath seriously, and ignore them,” Ann Coulter, a conservative political commentator wrote on X. The debate frames a familiar clash: who enforces immigration policy and where final authority lies, especially after the Supreme Court tried to curb lower court intervention.
Beyond the courtroom theater, the human stakes remain clear: the Biden administration initially granted Ethiopians TPS in 2022, citing war, humanitarian collapse, and widespread violence that made returns unsafe. The designation first took effect on Dec. 12, 2022, and was later extended through Dec. 12, 2025, with DHS estimating roughly 26,700 Ethiopian nationals could qualify. Those numbers and humanitarian arguments are central to both policy choices and legal combat, and they ensure the dispute will stay in the headlines as courts and the administration press their respective claims.
For now, the legal fight goes on in federal courtrooms even as Republicans press for deference to the Supreme Court and firmer executive enforcement. The arguments will turn on whether constitutional claims can survive the Mullin ruling and how aggressively the administration chooses to respond to what it calls lawless lower-court orders. Expect the conflict to unfold in short, intense legal bursts with big political implications for immigration policy and the separation of powers.
