Biden-appointed judges side with Trump as First Circuit reverses TPS rulings for Ethiopia and South Sudan

A federal appeals court dominated by Biden appointees handed the Trump administration a pair of immigration wins this week, reversing lower court orders that had blocked the termination of Temporary Protected Status for migrants from two African nations, and rebuking district judges whom the administration accused of defying the Supreme Court.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday issued two nearly identical rulings overturning orders by U.S. District Judges Brian Murphy and Patti Saris, who had temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending TPS protections for migrants from Ethiopia and South Sudan. Both district judges acted late last week, issuing procedural orders to preserve the status quo while they weighed whether plaintiffs could amend their complaints to pursue constitutional claims.

The appeals court found that both orders ran headlong into the Supreme Court's June ruling in Mullin v. Doe, which held that courts cannot block TPS terminations based on non-constitutional claims. The three-judge panel, two Biden appointees and one Trump appointee, did not split along partisan lines. All three agreed.

Two Biden appointees joined the ruling without dissent

Judges Julie Rikelman and Seth Aframe, both appointed by President Biden, joined Trump appointee Joshua Dunlap on the panel. Their unanimous decision quoted the Supreme Court's own language, noting that Mullin established that "the TPS statute's judicial-review bar applies to all non-constitutional claims" challenging the Homeland Security secretary's decision to end a TPS designation. The ruling left no room for the procedural workarounds Murphy and Saris had attempted.

That unanimity matters. When the administration's critics paint every immigration enforcement action as lawless overreach, it becomes harder to sustain that argument when judges appointed by the opposing party apply the same precedent and reach the same conclusion. The Supreme Court had already handed the Trump administration major immigration victories earlier this year, and the First Circuit's decision extends that momentum into the lower courts.

Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan, whose state played a role in the litigation, told Fox News Digital that the rulings were straightforward applications of what the Supreme Court already settled.

"These are clear wins for President Trump following his big win at the U.S. Supreme Court, explaining that district courts are not supposed to second guess TPS terminations, and even as this plays out, we're moving towards the end of this litigation because district courts should not be hearing these disputes, and that's what the Supreme Court said."

Wessan added a pointed summary of where things now stand for the plaintiffs, African Communities Together, a New York-based immigrant advocacy organization, along with individual TPS recipients from both countries.

"If they want to let the plaintiffs amend their complaint, they're allowed to do that, but in the meantime, TPS is over."

DHS General Counsel accused district judges of defying the Supreme Court

Before the First Circuit stepped in, the Trump administration had already made clear it viewed both district court orders as illegitimate. DHS General Counsel James Percival took to X to publicly criticize both judges. He described Murphy's order as "mutiny against the Supreme Court" and characterized Saris' ruling as "open defiance" of the justices' decision in Mullin.

Those are sharp words from a senior government lawyer, and the First Circuit's reversal lends them credibility. Murphy and Saris had issued their blocking orders despite the Supreme Court's clear instruction that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional challenges. The district judges framed their orders as procedural, preserving the status quo while they considered whether plaintiffs could refile with constitutional claims. The appeals court rejected that framing.

A DHS spokesperson reinforced the administration's position in a statement to Fox News Digital, calling the rulings "a win for the rule of law and common sense."

"Temporary Protected Status is exactly that, temporary. For too long, TPS has been allowed to function as a de facto amnesty program despite Congress never intending it to be permanent."

That argument, that TPS was designed as a short-term shield, not a pathway to indefinite residency, has gained traction in conservative legal circles and now carries the weight of Supreme Court precedent behind it. The pattern of courts reversing progressive policy initiatives has become a recurring feature of the current legal landscape.

Murphy and Saris face a growing record of reversals

Fox News Digital reported that the First Circuit's decisions marked the "latest setback" for both district judges. Administration officials and legal experts had already labeled Murphy and Saris as "rogue" judges, a characterization that carries more force now that an appellate panel including two Biden appointees has overruled them.

Fox News Digital reached out to both judges for comment. Neither response was reported.

The Mullin v. Doe decision, issued by the Supreme Court in June, drew a clear boundary. Courts may still consider claims that a TPS termination violates the Constitution. But they may not block terminations based on statutory or administrative-law arguments, the kind of claims that had fueled years of litigation keeping TPS protections in place long after conditions in the designated countries had changed.

That distinction is the hinge of this fight. The district judges tried to hold the door open by treating their orders as procedural pauses, not substantive blocks. The First Circuit said the effect was the same: keeping TPS alive in defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling. The legal maneuvering recalls the broader tension between progressive officials resisting Trump administration actions and the courts that ultimately uphold them.

Plaintiffs can still pursue constitutional claims, but TPS protections are gone

The First Circuit's rulings do not end all litigation. The Supreme Court in Mullin left open the possibility that plaintiffs could bring constitutional challenges to TPS terminations. African Communities Together and the individual TPS recipients from Ethiopia and South Sudan may still seek to amend their complaints to raise such claims.

But the practical effect of Wednesday's decisions is immediate: the procedural shields Murphy and Saris erected are gone. The Trump administration can move forward with terminating TPS for both groups while any amended complaints work their way through the courts.

Several open questions remain. The specific conditions in Ethiopia and South Sudan that plaintiffs argued DHS failed to properly assess were not detailed in the court filings as reported. Iowa's precise role in the litigation, beyond Solicitor General Wessan's public commentary, remains unclear. And the current status of any amended complaints has not been reported. The broader legal fight over whether federal courts will continue to intervene in politically charged policy disputes shows no sign of cooling.

What is clear is the trajectory. The Supreme Court told lower courts to stop blocking TPS terminations on non-constitutional grounds. Two district judges tried to find a procedural side door. And an appeals court, including judges appointed by the president whose administration brought these cases, shut it.

When even the other side's judges follow the law, the law is probably on your side.