Two federal judges in Massachusetts tried to sidestep the Supreme Court’s immigration ruling — and just got smacked down by a three-judge panel at the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appellate panel overturned administrative pauses issued by Judges Patti Saris and Brian Murphy that sought to stop the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for foreign nationals from South Sudan and Ethiopia, respectively.
Saris and Murphy — both with a track record of defying higher courts — had issued stays to give challengers time to repackage their failed lawsuits after the Supreme Court shut the door on them last month.
“MULLIN HELD THAT ‘THE TPS STATUTE’S JUDICIAL-REVIEW BAR APPLIES TO ALL NON-CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS’ CHALLENGING THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY’S DETERMINATION.”
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe that federal courts can’t review non-constitutional challenges to the government’s TPS decisions. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, which also rejected a constitutional claim that Trump’s termination of TPS for Haitians was racially motivated.
CNN reported this week that challengers have been scrambling to repackage their prior procedural arguments “into new constitutional claims” — an apparent attempt to runaround the Supreme Court’s ruling. Saris and Murphy gave them time to do exactly that.
The 1st Circuit panel — comprised of two Biden appointees and one Trump appointee — said its reversal is “in light of” the Mullin v. Doe ruling.
“Claims of that nature were the only basis for the postponement order on appeal,” the court ruled. “Accordingly, the government’s request for summary reversal is allowed.”
The panel remanded the cases back to the district courts “for further proceedings in light of and consistent with Mullin.”
But the Department of Homeland Security is warning that Wednesday’s ruling likely won’t stop the rogue-judge problem.
DHS General Counsel James Percival noted on X that while overturning the district judges’ stays is a “great win to be sure,” Judge Saris “already indicated that she would enter a new order postponing the termination on remand.”
“That is the absurdity we are facing,” Percival added.
I’m suspicious about these two orders. They go out of their way to quote the passage from the SCOTUS decision saying the statute’s jurisdictional bar applies to all “non-constitutional” claims, and remanding for further consideration in light of that language.
Murphy already… https://t.co/fppVxFN1Ji
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 29, 2026
Murphy, the Massachusetts-based judge, has a documented history of defying Supreme Court rulings. Both judges appeared to be signaling they’d simply issue new orders once the cases returned to their courtrooms — exactly what DHS General Counsel predicted.
The appellate court’s language emphasized that the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional bar applies to “all non-constitutional claims,” which legal observers worry could give the district judges an opening to entertain newly-repackaged constitutional arguments.
Patriots know how this game works: lower-court judges who disagree with the Supreme Court find creative ways to keep cases alive and delay Trump administration enforcement — even when the high court has spoken.
A great win to be sure. But remember, the district judge already indicated that she would enter a new order postponing the termination on remand. That is the absurdity we are facing. https://t.co/IwVq0iFxE0
— James Percival (@DHSGenCounsel) July 29, 2026
