Two Biden-appointed appellate judges joined a Trump appointee in reversing district court orders that had blocked the administration's termination of Temporary Protected Status for migrants from Ethiopia and South Sudan, a ruling DHS called "a win for the rule of law and common sense."
The First Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday issued two nearly identical rulings dismantling temporary restraining orders that lower court judges had put in place late last week. The appellate panel found both orders directly conflicted with the Supreme Court's June decision in Mullin v. Doe, which held that courts cannot block TPS terminations based on non-constitutional claims. The three-judge panel, Judges Julie Rikelman and Seth Aframe, both Biden appointees, and Judge Joshua Dunlap, a Trump appointee, ruled unanimously.
The outcome matters because it was not a split decision along partisan appointment lines. Two judges nominated by President Biden read the Supreme Court's precedent and applied it against the position favored by progressive advocacy groups. That is the kind of judicial discipline that strengthens the rule of law regardless of which president put a judge on the bench.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued an order temporarily blocking the Trump administration's termination of TPS for Ethiopian nationals. Separately, U.S. District Judge Patti Saris issued a parallel order blocking the TPS termination for South Sudanese nationals. Both orders came late last week, just weeks after the Supreme Court's Mullin v. Doe ruling made clear that non-constitutional challenges to TPS terminations are barred by statute.
Both district judges framed their orders as procedural measures to preserve the status quo while they considered whether plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaints to pursue constitutional claims. But the First Circuit found even that procedural posture ran afoul of the high court's ruling.
The appellate panel quoted Mullin directly in its decision: "the TPS statute's judicial-review bar applies to all non-constitutional claims" challenging the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination regarding TPS termination. The message was plain, lower courts do not get to second-guess the executive branch on these designations unless a genuine constitutional violation is at stake.
The lawsuits were brought by African Communities Together, a New York-based immigrant advocacy organization, alongside individual TPS recipients from Ethiopia and South Sudan. Plaintiffs alleged DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution, claiming the agency failed to properly assess country conditions and that racial discrimination motivated the terminations.
DHS General Counsel James Percival did not wait for the appellate rulings to make his views known. Percival posted on X that Judge Murphy's order amounted to "mutiny against the Supreme Court." He described Judge Saris' ruling as "open defiance" of the justices' decision in Mullin.
Those are strong words from a senior government lawyer. But the First Circuit's swift reversal, within days, not months, suggests Percival's characterization was not far from the legal reality. When an appellate court moves that fast to undo a lower court order, it typically signals the error was clear.
A DHS spokesperson reinforced the administration's position in a statement. "Temporary Protected Status is exactly that, temporary," the spokesperson said. "For too long, TPS has been allowed to function as a de facto amnesty program despite Congress never intending it to be permanent." The administration has long argued that TPS, which Congress designed as short-term relief for nationals of countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions, has been stretched well beyond its original purpose. The Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the administration on that point this year.
Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of both Judge Murphy and Judge Saris for comment. No response was reported.
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan framed the First Circuit decisions as part of a broader pattern of wins for the administration on TPS. Wessan told Fox News Digital:
"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 went further, dismissing the possibility that amended complaints could change the outcome in any meaningful way. "If they want to let the plaintiffs amend their complaint, they're allowed to do that, but in the meantime, TPS is over," he said.
That framing aligns with the trajectory of TPS litigation across multiple federal courts. The Supreme Court's Mullin v. Doe decision in June stripped lower courts of jurisdiction over the most common legal theories used to challenge TPS terminations, claims rooted in the Administrative Procedure Act and general statutory arguments. What remains is a narrow window for constitutional claims, and plaintiffs have yet to demonstrate those claims can survive scrutiny. The Supreme Court delivered multiple immigration wins for the administration in a single session, and lower courts are now being forced to follow that precedent.
The First Circuit reversals fit a recurring dynamic in immigration litigation during the Trump administration. District court judges issue emergency orders blocking executive action. The administration appeals. Appellate courts, sometimes stocked with judges appointed by Democratic presidents, reverse the lower courts on the merits.
The Mullin v. Doe ruling left open one door: claims alleging actual constitutional violations, such as racial discrimination. Plaintiffs in both the Ethiopia and South Sudan cases have raised that allegation. But raising an allegation and proving one are different things, and the First Circuit's willingness to reverse even the procedural hold suggests appellate judges see the district courts as having overstepped.
Percival's public criticism of the district judges, calling their actions "mutiny" and "open defiance", reflects a broader frustration within the administration that some lower court judges have treated Supreme Court rulings as suggestions rather than binding law. Whether or not one shares Percival's tone, the substance of his complaint was validated within days by the very appellate court that oversees those district judges. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has objected to these rulings, but the legal trend is unmistakable.
TPS was created by Congress in 1990 as a temporary shield for foreign nationals whose home countries faced emergencies. Some designations have been renewed for decades, a fact the administration and its allies point to as evidence the program has drifted far from its statutory intent. Ethiopian nationals have held TPS status since 2021, and South Sudanese nationals since 2011.
The administration's ability to end those designations now rests on firmer legal ground than at any point in the past several years. The Supreme Court has spoken. The First Circuit has enforced that ruling. And district judges who attempted to maintain the status quo were overruled in a matter of days. The Fifth Circuit has also issued rulings reinforcing the administration's enforcement authority on related immigration questions.
Open questions remain. The full text of the First Circuit opinions has not been widely published. The specific constitutional claims plaintiffs intend to pursue in amended complaints have not been detailed beyond the racial discrimination allegation. And it is unclear whether the TPS terminations for Ethiopian and South Sudanese nationals take immediate effect following the appellate reversals or whether further procedural steps are required.
What is clear is the direction of travel. Courts at every level above the district bench are telling lower court judges the same thing: Congress gave the executive branch the authority to end TPS designations, the Supreme Court confirmed it, and individual judges do not get to override that because they disagree with the policy. The administration has pressed its legal advantage on multiple immigration fronts this year, and the judiciary, including judges appointed by its political opponents, keeps agreeing.
When Biden-appointed judges enforce a Trump administration policy because the law demands it, that is not a partisan outcome. That is the system working the way it is supposed to.
