Obama Judge Defies Supreme Court Again in Jaw-Dropping Immigration Order

Liberty Check

• Obama-appointed Massachusetts judge blocks Trump’s TPS termination for Somalia despite recent Supreme Court ruling limiting such judicial interference
• Move comes days after federal appeals court reversed similar blocks, intensifying concerns about district judges working around higher court precedent
• DHS officials condemn pattern of ‘defiance, obstruction, and delay’ as judicial activism threatens executive immigration authority

An Obama-appointed federal judge in Massachusetts has once again blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for Somalia, issuing a new stay just days after a federal appeals court threw out similar judicial roadblocks for Ethiopia and South Sudan.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs issued the administrative stay Friday after activist groups rewrote their lawsuit with new constitutional claims—a maneuver critics say is designed to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear guidance limiting lower court interference in immigration policy.

The timing has raised eyebrows across conservative legal circles. Burroughs’ order came mere days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed similar administrative stays by other Biden-era judges who had temporarily blocked Trump’s TPS terminations.

The First Circuit based its rulings on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mullin v. Doe, which explicitly ruled that lower courts generally cannot block TPS terminations based on non-constitutional claims.

DHS General Counsel James Percival didn’t mince words in his response, accusing Burroughs of blatant judicial obstruction.

“Judge Allison Burroughs just entered yet another order preventing the termination of Somalia TPS. There is no serious debate about what is going on in these cases—defiance, obstruction, and delay,” Percival wrote on X.

Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan went further, arguing that Burroughs’ order improperly grants emergency relief despite what he described as legally deficient claims.

“I looked at the amended complaint in the Somalia TPS case,” Wessan wrote on X.

“The district judge has entered a novel ‘administrative stay’ to sort out the claims. She has declared the TPS termination ‘void’ for now, while deciding whether any of the claims can justify a more permanent pause.”

Wessan argued the order “turns the law upside down,” noting that four of the lawsuit’s five claims are already foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Mullin.

He described the remaining claim as “frivolous.”

“Even if this was a fresh lawsuit without the baggage, the claims cannot justify any relief—much less meet the high bar for interim relief,” Wessan wrote.

“This is very bad. I hope that, with time to review, Judge Burroughs vacates her administrative stay to allow the correct status quo to continue.”

The plaintiffs—led by African Communities Together—rewrote their complaint to allege Fifth Amendment violations, claiming the Department of Homeland Security’s decision was predetermined.

They point to President Donald Trump’s November 2025 Truth Social post announcing the end of TPS before DHS completed its review process, arguing this violated due process requirements.

The amended lawsuit also alleges Equal Protection violations, citing past Trump remarks about Somali immigrants and claiming racial discrimination motivated the policy change.

The complaint even references Trump administration statements about South African refugees, attempting to establish a pattern of preferential treatment.

Burroughs has presided over the Somalia TPS litigation since earlier this year, initially entering an administrative stay on March 13 to prevent the termination from taking effect.

The growing pattern of district court judges issuing administrative stays to circumvent higher court rulings has sparked intense debate about the proper role of the federal judiciary in immigration enforcement.

Conservative legal experts argue these maneuvers represent a fundamental threat to the separation of powers, with unelected judges substituting their policy preferences for the decisions of the elected executive branch.

The Constitution must be defended.