A federal judge has paused the planned end of Temporary Protected Status for Ethiopians, ruling that the administration did not follow the process Congress set out. The decision centers on whether officials respected statutory limits and procedural rules before trying to remove TPS. That ruling has sparked a sharp political response from the administration and supporters of tighter immigration enforcement.
Judge Brian Murphy granted a motion to delay the termination of Ethiopia’s TPS while the case moves forward on its merits. “Plaintiffs brought suit to challenge the lawfulness of the termination, arguing that Defendants had violated the TPS statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to postpone the effective date of the termination pending resolution of the merits. Because Defendants terminated Ethiopia’s TPS designation without regard for the process delineated by Congress, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion,” Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote. That ruling pauses an action that the Department of Homeland Security had planned to finalize last winter.
Murphy, who received his nomination in 2024, emphasized the role of Congress in shaping immigration policy and the limits on executive agencies. The court document frames the controversy as one about following statutory commands rather than policy preference. Republicans and immigration hawks see the decision as another example of judges stepping into policy fights.
Last year DHS announced a move to end Ethiopia’s TPS designation, setting an effective termination date in mid-February. That notice followed internal agency determinations about country conditions and eligibility under the statute. The announced termination never took effect because the lawsuit sought to block the change pending judicial review.
“Fundamental to this case — and indeed to our constitutional system — is the principle that the will of the President does not supersede that of Congress. Presidential whims do not and cannot supplant agencies’ statutory obligations,” Murphy wrote in the April 8 memorandum and order. Those lines underline the court’s view that agencies must operate within the bounds Congress creates, not according to changing political goals.
“The Constitution requires that the President ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ a directive which includes enforcing the laws in accordance with congressional commands. And administrative agencies granted executive authority by Congress may operate only within the bounds Congress has set. Yet, in this case, Defendants have disregarded both that foundational principle and the statutory scheme enacted by Congress,” he asserted. The judge tied his conclusion directly to the statutory framework that governs TPS decisions.
TRUMP ADMIN UNLAWFULLY TERMINATED LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANTS WHO USED BIDEN-ERA APP, JUDGE RULES
The administration pushed back immediately, calling the stay an example of judicial overreach. “This stay by radical, Biden-appointed Judge Brian Murphy is just the latest example of judicial activists trying to prevent President Trump from restoring integrity to America’s legal immigration system,” DHS asserted. Officials argue that TPS is meant to be temporary and that improved conditions in Ethiopia no longer meet the statutory threshold.
From a Republican perspective, the central objection is straightforward: policy changes meant to strengthen borders and enforce immigration law are being blocked by courts rather than debated in Congress. Supporters of the administration’s move say the TPS designation had outlived its purpose and that ending it would put Americans first by restoring predictable immigration rules. Opponents counter that procedural due process and statutory obligations must be observed before sweeping changes take effect.
The litigation will now proceed to test the merits of those claims, with the stay keeping current protections in place for now. That outcome guarantees more courtroom fights and political messaging as the case continues. For Republicans, the episode reinforces the call for clearer congressional action on immigration rather than relying on episodic judicial rulings.
