A federal district judge, Brian Murphy, recently sparked controversy by issuing a ruling that seemingly contradicts a U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump administration to resume deportations of certain migrants to third countries. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision stayed a lower court injunction, giving the Trump administration temporary permission to carry out its deportation plans. Murphy, appointed by President Biden and based in Boston, had earlier ruled that all migrants facing deportation to third countries must remain in U.S. custody until they receive a “reasonable fear interview,” a process meant to determine the risk of persecution or torture if deported. His order stemmed from a class-action lawsuit involving deportations to nations like South Sudan and Guatemala.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Murphy doubled down, arguing that the high court’s decision did not apply to his specific case, prompting backlash from conservative commentators. Critics accused him of ignoring judicial hierarchy and acting on partisan motives, citing his nomination by Biden and recommendations from Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer had previously contended that Murphy’s ruling impeded deportation of dangerous individuals without due process. The administration had even transferred some migrants to a U.S. military base in Djibouti pending interviews. Conservative voices on social media labeled Murphy an “activist judge” and expressed frustration with the judiciary’s role in immigration cases. The controversy highlights increasing tension between the executive branch, federal courts, and the Supreme Court over the handling of last-minute deportation efforts.
