Here’s what happened.
A Biden-appointed federal judge has once again put the Trump administration’s immigration agenda on hold, reigniting a growing legal battle over who has the final say on Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The decision comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that many legal experts believed would limit the ability of lower courts to block federal immigration policies.
The latest dispute centers on whether federal judges can continue delaying Department of Homeland Security decisions after the Supreme Court narrowed judicial review of TPS cases. Critics argue the new ruling should have cleared the way for the administration to move forward, while supporters of the lawsuits insist constitutional questions remain unresolved.
Judge Temporarily Blocks TPS Changes
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, issued a temporary administrative stay that keeps TPS protections in place for Ethiopian nationals while the court reviews a revised legal challenge.
The lawsuit was brought by African Communities Together and several TPS recipients after the Trump administration moved to end Ethiopia’s designation under the program.
Temporary Protected Status allows eligible foreign nationals from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to remain and work legally in the United States for a limited period. The designation does not provide permanent legal status, but it can be renewed by the federal government.
Supreme Court Changed the Legal Landscape
The administration argues the case should have ended after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mullin v. Doe.
In that 6-3 ruling, the justices concluded that lower federal courts generally cannot use the Administrative Procedure Act to block Department of Homeland Security decisions involving the designation or termination of Temporary Protected Status.
Administration officials believe the decision reaffirmed that immigration policy is primarily the responsibility of the executive branch, not individual district judges.
However, the Supreme Court did not completely close the door on every legal challenge. The justices left open the possibility that constitutional claims could still be considered by lower courts.
That opening prompted attorneys representing TPS recipients to revise their lawsuit, shifting their focus from administrative law to constitutional arguments. Murphy’s latest order temporarily preserves the current protections while those claims are reviewed.
DHS Pushes Back
The ruling immediately drew criticism from Department of Homeland Security officials.
DHS General Counsel James Percival accused Murphy of ignoring the Supreme Court’s guidance and interfering with the administration’s lawful authority to enforce immigration policy.
Percival also referenced Murphy’s earlier involvement in a separate deportation dispute involving a flight bound for South Sudan.
According to DHS, that earlier order forced Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to remain temporarily at a U.S. military installation in Djibouti, where officials said personnel faced health risks and regional security concerns while awaiting further court action.
The administration has repeatedly argued that nationwide injunctions issued by individual district judges create uncertainty and delay the enforcement of immigration laws approved by elected officials.
Another Massachusetts Judge Issues Similar Order
Murphy’s decision was not the only setback for the administration.
Just hours earlier, Senior U.S. District Judge Patti Saris also issued a temporary stay involving TPS protections for South Sudanese nationals.
Like Murphy, Saris emphasized that her order was designed only to preserve the status quo while the court considers updated legal arguments following the Supreme Court’s ruling. She made clear that the temporary order should not be viewed as a final decision on the merits of the case.
Conservatives Question Lower Court Authority
The twin rulings quickly sparked criticism from conservative legal commentators and constitutional scholars.
Several argued that the Supreme Court had already established clear limits on lower court involvement in TPS decisions and questioned whether district judges were respecting that precedent.
Some legal analysts suggested the administration should immediately seek appellate review if additional injunctions continue to delay implementation of immigration policies.
The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of federal courts and the balance of power between judges and the executive branch.
How the Case Began
The dispute traces back to the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to end Ethiopia’s TPS designation after determining that conditions in the country had changed enough to justify terminating the temporary protections.
The Biden administration originally designated Ethiopia for TPS in 2022, citing armed conflict, humanitarian concerns, widespread violence, and food insecurity.
The designation was later extended through December 2025, with DHS estimating that approximately 26,700 Ethiopian nationals living in the United States could qualify for the protections.
After the Trump administration announced plans to end the designation, immigrant advocacy organizations filed suit, arguing that DHS failed to follow the procedures required by federal law.
While earlier court decisions temporarily halted the administration’s plans, the Supreme Court’s June ruling significantly reshaped the legal arguments now being presented.
What’s Next?
The administration is expected to continue arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision limits the authority of lower courts to block TPS determinations. Attorneys representing TPS recipients, meanwhile, will attempt to convince the courts that constitutional claims still provide a legal basis for temporary relief.
Because multiple federal judges are now weighing similar questions, legal experts say the issue could soon return to the Supreme Court for additional clarification.
Until then, the future of TPS for thousands of Ethiopian and South Sudanese nationals remains uncertain, and the broader fight over executive authority, judicial power, and immigration policy is likely to continue.
