Judge Brian Murphy blocked the Trump administration's vaccine policies on the same day a federal appeals court overturned another one of his rulings.

The Biden appointee, sitting in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, issued a sweeping preliminary injunction against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s overhaul of CDC vaccine guidelines.

Hours earlier, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals paused Murphy's separate ruling that had blocked the Department of Homeland Security's third-country deportation policy, Fox News reported.

The timing was remarkable. One ruling reversed in the morning, another activist injunction filed by afternoon.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche didn't mince words:

"How many times can Judge Murphy get reversed in one year? 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."

He added a pointed question: "How much embarrassment can this Judge take?"

A Pattern That Speaks for Itself

Murphy's record tells a clear story. Last June, the Supreme Court stayed his injunction on the third-country deportation policy in a 6-3 order. One week later, the high court issued a rare second order, this time 7-2, admonishing Murphy for flouting its decision. Two Supreme Court interventions in one case, against one judge, in a single week.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley described what Murphy did as giving "a stiff arm" to the Supreme Court. His assessment of the broader problem was blunt:

"Regardless of your views on the merits, this system cannot function with such rogue operators at the trial level."

Murphy's deportation ruling had prevented DHS from removing what court papers said could be thousands of illegal immigrants. His vaccine ruling stayed a January 2026 immunization schedule that reduced vaccine requirements for children and invalidated a newly appointed vaccine advisory committee. In both cases, a single district judge inserted himself between the executive branch and its core policy agenda.

The "Science" Double Standard

In his vaccine ruling, Murphy quoted Carl Sagan to argue that science is "the best we have" as he blocked the CDC's revised schedule. It's a nice sentiment. It's also selectively applied.

University of Minnesota law professor Ilan Wurman identified the problem immediately:

"When I litigated COVID cases against the government the courts regularly said they had to defer to the public health experts. 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?"

That question answers itself. During the Biden administration, courts told challengers they had no standing to second-guess public health agencies. Now that a different administration runs those agencies, suddenly judges feel empowered to overrule them in granular detail.

Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana sharpened the point further. Democrat-appointed judges embraced the Biden administration's expansive redefinition of sex and gender in federal policy, positions that contradicted basic biology, without raising a single scientific objection. But Kennedy restructures vaccine guidelines, and the same judicial class discovers a passion for empirical rigor.

"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."

One Judge, Nationwide Power

The deeper issue here extends beyond Murphy. The practice of individual district judges issuing sweeping injunctions against federal policy has become the left's preferred workaround when it loses elections. Can't win the White House? Find a sympathetic judge in the right district and get a nationwide block.

Murphy's record makes him an especially vivid example. Overturned by the Supreme Court. Admonished for defying the Supreme Court. Overturned again by the appeals court. And on that very same day, another sweeping injunction against a different administration priority.

The DOJ has signaled it will appeal again. Based on Murphy's track record, the outcome is predictable. The only question is how many months of policy delay a single district judge can extract before higher courts correct him once more.

The system was not designed for judges who treat reversal as a speed bump.