A Biden-appointed federal judge who drew Supreme Court intervention twice in a separate deportation case is facing fresh conservative backlash after temporarily blocking Trump administration vaccine policies on Monday.
Judge Brian Murphy’s ruling in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts was the latest in a string of high-profile decisions that blocked administration policies and were later reversed on appeal, prompting sharp criticism from the Department of Justice and intensifying scrutiny of his record.
“How many times can Judge Murphy get reversed in one year?” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote on X. “The same day he is stayed for repeatedly refusing to follow the law, he issues another activist decision. We will keep appealing these lawless decisions, and we will keep winning.
“The question is, how much embarrassment can this Judge take?”
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES TRUMP’S ‘THIRD COUNTRY’ DEPORTATION POLICY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Earlier Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit paused a decision by Murphy to block the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country deportation policy. Murphy’s decision had prevented DHS from deporting what court papers said could be thousands of illegal immigrants and followed the judge issuing similar, related decisions last year that were both rejected by the Supreme Court.
In the vaccine case, brought by medical organizations against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Murphy issued a sweeping preliminary injunction, finding Kennedy likely broke the law by overhauling the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine policies.
In both instances, Murphy’s decisions interfered with top Trump administration agenda items — cracking down on immigration and restructuring vaccine mandates — that raised eyebrows on the right.
Murphy’s decision in the vaccine case granted preliminary relief to the medical organizations by staying a January 2026 immunization schedule that reduced the number of vaccine requirements for children and invalidated a newly appointed vaccine advisory committee and the committee’s decisions while the lawsuit proceeds through the courts.
Quoting Carl Sagan, Murphy said in his order that science is “the best we have” and touted the efficacy of vaccines as he blocked the CDC’s new vaccine schedule.
University of Minnesota law school professor Ilan Wurman questioned what he viewed as the judge’s “double standard.”
DOJ SAYS IT OWES DEPORTED VENEZUELANS NO DUE PROCESS, DARES COURTS TO INTERVENE
“When I litigated COVID cases against the government, the courts regularly said they had to defer to the public health experts,” Wurman said. “I assume there’s a good reason for the double standard here? Or are there some health experts federal judges in Massachusetts like more than others?”
Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., said Democrat-appointed judges sided with the Biden administration and progressive groups on transgender policies that took an expansive view of sex and gender, which Banks said flew in the face of science and did not jibe with Murphy’s ruling.
“Progressive district court judges claim RFK’s vaccine policies aren’t based on science yet had no problem with Biden’s radical gender policies. Seems like they’re the ones not following the science,” Banks said.
Murphy first gained headlines when the Supreme Court stayed Murphy’s injunction over the third-party deportation policy in a 6-3 order last June. The high court followed up with a rare, second 7-2 order a week later admonishing the judge for flouting its decision.
George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley observed at the time that Murphy had given “a stiff arm” to the Supreme Court.
“Regardless of your views on the merits, this system cannot function with such rogue operators at the trial level,” Turley said.
