Incoming constitutional crisis in the courts…

This is one of the things that should keep Chief Justice Roberts awake at night - MUTINY. When the lower courts ignore Supreme Court Rulings, it will lead to anarchy and chaos. The Supreme Court has NO ENFORCEMENT POWER.

“Mutiny Against the Supreme Court” – DHS Blasts Biden Judge for Indefinitely Extending Block on Termination of Temporary Protected Status for Ethiopians

July 24 2026

Last month, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration is allowed to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians.

The high court, in a 6-3 vote, ruled that the Temporary Protected Status is… temporary!

DHS General Counsel James Percival blasted Judge Murphy on Friday afternoon.

“Judge Brian Murphy just entered an order preventing us from terminating TPS for Ethiopia. These district judges are engaged in mutiny against the Supreme Court. It must stop!” James Percival said.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/07/mutiny-against-supreme-court-dhs-blasts-biden-judge/

And, almost exactly one year prior, mutiny of the lower court against the Supreme Court was a featured OPINION in the New York Times. (Same lower court Judge.)

The Mutiny of the Judges

July 31 2025

I have an op-ed in theNew York Timestoday on the mutiny of (certain) lower-court judges against the Supreme Court. The issue is not merely the situation in which a district judge decides a new case contrary to governing precedent. In the cases I discuss, the Court has ruled on the very issue at hand, in that very litigation, or at least has ruled on an indistinguishable issue, in which the parties were different but the legal question identical. Yet even in these situations, there has been a rash of recent examples in which the district court nonetheless ignores the Court’s decision.

An excerpt to show what I mean:

“Consider Judge Brian Murphy of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts. Judge Murphy issued a preliminary injunction against the transfer of removable aliens to third countries, in cases in which the transfer was expressly permitted by federal law. So far, this was just an ordinary example of judicial overreach.

But after the Supreme Court issued an order to stay — that is, to stop — the preliminary injunction while litigation proceeded (over a dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor), Judge Murphy went beyond overreach. He decided that his order enforcing the injunction that the court had stayed nonetheless remained in effect — a proposition for which his only cited authority was the dissent from Justice Sotomayor. This seemed to be malicious, whether or not it counts as “compliance” at all. The Supreme Court, with the notable concurrence of Justice Elena Kagan, then had to stay this second order and explain that Judge Murphy’s renewed effort was also illicit.”

And an excerpt on the problems for the rule of law this creates:

District Court judges have almost no accountability; they are like feudal lords who lay down the law in their local courts. If they are reversed, at least they will have stymied for some time the implementation of presidential policies they find objectionable. There is a standing temptation for individual lower-court judges to play to the galleries, even if doing so undermines the credibility of the judiciary as a whole.

https://thenewdigest.substack.com/p/the-mutiny-of-the-judges

>>24866708

>Judge Brian Murphy

Biden-appointed judge twice shut down by SCOTUS faces 'activist' fire after latest Trump policy block

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?"

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.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-appointed-judge-twice-shut-down-scotus-faces-activist-fire-after-latest-trump-policy-block

>>24866746

The Supreme Court is ignored by lower court judges. NO ENFORCEMENT POWERS. Will Chief Justice Roberts ask POTUS to use his executive powers to control his own court? Probably not. Too embarrassing. But, what can be done? This is a crisis already.

Supreme Court Tells Judge to Fall in Line

Jul 8 2025

In polite but firm judicial language, the Supreme Court made it clear on July 3 that Massachusetts federal district court Judge Brian Murphy wouldn’t get away with dodging the stay the court had issued against him in an important immigration case.

According to the court, Murphy is bound by the prior order and cannot “enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”

Murphy’s misbehavior comes as no surprise given that he’s one of President Joe Biden’s “Midnight” judges.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., rushed him through the Senate during its lame-duck session after the 2024 election, with Murphy’s nomination barely confirmed on Dec. 2 by a 47-45 vote. Even Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, arguably the most liberal Republican in the Senate, voted against Murphy because he is so radical.

The case in question involved a preliminary injunction issued by Murphy preventing the removal of criminal illegal aliens to third-world countries—in this case, South Sudan.

On June 23, the Supreme Court granted the U.S. Justice Department’s emergency request for a stay in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. The court’s order, issued over the entirely predictable and banal dissent of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, stayed Murphy’s April 18 injunction, “pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.”

Even a first-year law student would understand that meant that Murphy could no longer enforce his injunction or take any actions to stop the government from removing deportable illegal aliens to third countries. But apparently not Brian Murphy.

As the Justice Department wrote in a motion filed the very next day, Murphy issued an order just hours after the Supreme Court’s order, stating that his related ruling enforcing the injunction “remains in full force and effect … not withstanding todays[sic] stay of the Preliminary Injunction.”

The “related ruling” was a second order Murphy issued on May 21 that clarified the April 18 injunction order and remedied what Murphy claimed were supposed “violations” of his April 18 injunction by the government in attempting to remove criminal aliens to South Sudan.

Murphy claimed the Supreme Court’s stay applied to his April 18 order but didn’t apply to his May 21 order, and that the government could still not move any aliens to South Sudan.

The Justice Department’s motion called Murphy’s action an “unprecedented defiance of this Court’s authority.” This, the government continued, is a “lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the Executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals.”

When an appellate court stays an injunction, the DOJ pointed out, the injunction cannot be enforced because the court that issued it has been divested of its judicial authority to enforce that order. But Murphy simply ignored that and told the government it had to comply with his injunction.

Murphy’s misconduct was the equivalent of the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” In this case, the man behind the curtain was the Supreme Court.

In response to the Justice Department’s motion for clarification, the man behind the curtain (the Supreme Court) issued the July 3 order, reiterating that it meant what it had said and that Murphy’s power to enforce his injunction is null and void.

The Justice Department also asked the Supreme Court to consider taking two other actions:

-Directing Murphy “not to issue further injunctions in this case without first obtaining pre-clearance from this Court” or

-“ordering that the case be reassigned to a different judge.”

Either action would have been appropriate given Murphy’s misconduct, but the court declined both. But that declination was based on the Supreme Court “‘assuming as we do’ that the District Court will now conform its order to our previous stay and cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order.”

Based on that assumption, the court said that “we have no occasion to reach the Government’s other requests for relief.”In other words, the court is assuming that Murphy will now quit defying the Supreme Court.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/07/08/supreme-court-clarifies-rogue-judge-brian-murphy-cant-ignore-courts-mandate/

>>24866801

Judge Murphy is one of Biden's "MIDNIGHT JUDGES"

The term "Midnight judges" historically refers to last-minute judicial appointments made by President John Adams in 1801, but it is currently being used by critics to describe the 22 federal judges confirmed by the Senate between the November 2024 election and January 2025 during the final days of President Joe Biden's term. President-elect Donald Trump publicly urged the Senate to halt these confirmations, arguing against filling lifetime positions after the election, while Senate Democrats proceeded to confirm nominees including appellate judge Embry Kidd.

Historical Context and Comparisons The modern usage draws a direct parallel to the Judiciary Act of 1801, where outgoing President Adams created new judgeships and commissioned Federalist supporters late into his final night in office to influence the judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took power.

Similarly, the lame-duck Senate under Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accelerated the confirmation process for Biden's nominees, with supporters noting this was a constitutional exercise of power similar to past transitions. Critics characterize these late confirmations as an attempt to install "radical" ideologues, while proponents highlight that Biden left office having confirmed a record 235 federal judges, surpassing the total number confirmed during Donald Trump's first term.

>>24866801

Appeals court reverses Mahdawi decision- says judge overstepped authority in deportation case

Jul 22 2026

A federal circuit court of appeals has overruled a Vermont judge who allegedly unlawfully released an immigrant detainee.

The ruling is not a deportation order, but it does give deportation decision-making to the U.S. immigration courts, not the federal court system…

—

U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford in Vermont had ordered Mohsen Mahdawi’s release a year ago, ruling that he enjoyed the same free speech rights as American citizens.

Crawford even went a step further, accusing the Trump administration of causing “great harm” to someone who had committed no crime.

—

https://vermontdailychronicle.com/appeals-court-rebukes-judge-crawford-for-overstepping-authority-in-mahdawi-deportation-case/

>>24867002

The Appeals Court has ruled that Judge Crawford has no jurisdiction over illegal aliens and they must have their cases heard in Immigration Court - not his court. Never-the-less, Crawford persists in his insubordination.

Judge says detention of Ecuadorian woman violated Constitution

Mar 2026

A federal judge’s decision to release an Ecuadorian woman detained by ICE during a raid of her South Burlington (Vermont) home last week signaled deep skepticism about a key plank of the government’s immigration crackdown.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated Johana Patin Patin’s constitutional rights when it detained her during a raid at her South Burlington residence last week, U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford wrote Tuesday.

Crawford had already released Patin Patin from ICE custody at a hearing on Monday, commenting that her case was “not really contestable.”

But in a written order elaborating on that decision, the judge went a step further to make clear that he believes ICE violated the Constitution by removing Patin Patin from her home for “no legitimate governmental purpose.”

Specifically, he ruled that ICE hadn’t upheld her right to due process. The agents simply apprehended her under the Trump administration’s argument that it can legally detain millions of noncitizens living in the U.S. — even those who, like Patin Patin, have a pending asylum claim — without showing that they are dangerous or likely to abscond.

—

Crawford’s decision to release Patin Patin immediately, rather than order a separate bond hearing in immigration court, likely spared her A federal judge’s decision to release an Ecuadorian woman detained by ICE during a raid of her South Burlington home last week signaled deep skepticism about a key plank of the government’s immigration crackdown.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated Johana Patin Patin’s constitutional rights when it detained her during a raid at her South Burlington residence last week, U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford wrote Tuesday.

Crawford had already released Patin Patin from ICE custody at a hearing on Monday, commenting that her case was “not really contestable.”

But in a written order elaborating on that decision, the judge went a step further to make clear that he believes ICE violated the Constitution by removing Patin Patin from her home for “no legitimate governmental purpose.”

—

Crawford’s decision to release Patin Patin immediately, rather than order a separate bond hearing in immigration court, likely spared her several days in prison, away from her husband and two young children.

It also sends a message, some immigration and civil rights attorneys say, that the courts here are willing to intervene in cases where ICE arrests immigrants simply because of their immigration status.

—

Crawford wrote that Patin Patin was “caught in the Government’s net” not because she had done anything wrong, but because she was “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2026-03-18/judge-detention-ecuadorian-woman-violated-constitution

>>24867066

NOTABLE nom