A federal judge in Massachusetts halted the Trump administration's effort to terminate temporary protected status for Ethiopian nationals, ruling on April 8 that the Department of Homeland Security ignored the process Congress laid out for ending such protections.
Judge Brian Murphy, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, granted plaintiffs' motion to postpone the effective date of the termination while the case proceeds on its merits. Murphy was nominated by then-President Joe Biden in 2024, a fact DHS was quick to highlight in its response.
The ruling is the latest in a growing pattern of federal judges, many appointed by Democratic presidents, stepping in to freeze executive-branch decisions on immigration. It raises a familiar question for Americans watching from the sidelines: who actually runs immigration policy in this country, the elected president or unelected judges?
Murphy's memorandum and order did not mince words. The judge framed the dispute as a matter of constitutional structure, arguing the administration bypassed statutory requirements when it moved to end Ethiopia's TPS designation.
"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."
Murphy went further, writing that the case touched on foundational separation-of-powers principles.
"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."
The word "whims" stands out. Federal judges typically reserve that kind of language for cases where they believe the executive branch acted arbitrarily. Whether this judge's characterization survives appeal is another matter. But the tone signals how aggressively some members of the judiciary are willing to push back against the administration's immigration agenda, a trend that has played out in other high-profile immigration cases involving judges appointed by Democratic presidents.
The Department of Homeland Security did not take the ruling quietly. A DHS spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the stay was judicial activism dressed in legal robes.
"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."
The spokesperson also laid out the administration's substantive case for ending TPS for Ethiopia, arguing that the original conditions justifying the designation no longer exist.
"Temporary means temporary. Country conditions, including armed conflicts, in Ethiopia have improved to the point that it no longer meets the law's requirement for Temporary Protected Status. The Trump administration is putting Americans first."
That two-word phrase, "temporary means temporary", captures the core frustration many conservatives share about TPS. The program was designed to offer short-term shelter to foreign nationals whose home countries faced armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. But designations have a way of lasting years, even decades, long after the original crisis subsides. At some point, "temporary" becomes a legal fiction.
Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued a notice last year indicating that the TPS designation for Ethiopia would be terminated as of February 13 at 11:59 p.m. That termination never took effect. Fox News Digital reported that the move "did not take effect, as it was stymied amid legal wranglings" even before Murphy's April 8 order formalized the postponement.
The plaintiffs, whose specific names do not appear in the court filings cited, sued to challenge the termination on three grounds: violation of the TPS statute itself, violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Murphy's order grants their motion to postpone the effective date while the court works through the merits of those claims.
Fox News Digital also reached out to the White House for comment. Whether the White House responded was not reported.
This case does not exist in a vacuum. Federal courts have repeatedly intervened to block or slow the Trump administration's efforts to enforce immigration law and restructure executive agencies. Judges have blocked the administration's U.S. Attorney picks on procedural grounds. They have quashed DOJ subpoenas in other high-profile federal disputes.
The common thread is a judiciary that increasingly treats the executive branch as a suspect rather than a co-equal branch of government, at least when the executive branch is led by a Republican. Murphy's order explicitly invokes the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, arguing that the president must enforce laws "in accordance with congressional commands."
"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."
There is an irony here worth noting. The same judicial philosophy that demands the executive branch follow congressional statutes to the letter on TPS has been far less exacting when it comes to other statutory obligations, say, the requirement that the federal government secure the border. Judges who insist on procedural perfection from this administration showed little appetite for holding the previous one accountable for ignoring immigration enforcement altogether.
That selective rigor is what makes the "judicial activism" charge from DHS resonate with so many Americans. It is not that judges should never check the executive branch. They should. But when the checking only runs in one direction, and when the judges doing the checking were all nominated by the political opposition, the pattern starts to look less like constitutional guardianship and more like policy obstruction by other means.
Similar dynamics have surfaced in cases involving federal agency restructuring, where judges appointed by Democratic presidents have voided executive actions on procedural technicalities while leaving the underlying policy questions unresolved.
Murphy's order does not end TPS for Ethiopia, nor does it permanently preserve it. The ruling postpones the termination's effective date while the court considers the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. That process could take months. In the meantime, Ethiopian TPS beneficiaries remain in a legal holding pattern, protected by a court order, not by any resolution of the underlying policy question.
The administration will almost certainly appeal or seek to expedite the merits phase. DHS has made its position clear: conditions in Ethiopia have improved, and the statutory basis for TPS no longer holds. Whether a higher court agrees, or whether this case joins the long list of immigration disputes that drag on through multiple rounds of litigation, remains an open question.
Meanwhile, taxpayers and lawful immigrants continue to watch a system where "temporary" protections become permanent through litigation, where a single district judge can freeze national immigration policy, and where the administration's ability to enforce the law depends on which judge draws the case. The broader pattern of consequential federal court rulings shaping policy outcomes on both sides of the political spectrum shows no sign of slowing.
Temporary protected status was supposed to mean something. If "temporary" can be extended indefinitely by any judge with a procedural objection, then the word has lost its meaning, and so has the law Congress wrote.
