一位由拜登任命的联邦法官在周一暂时阻止特朗普政府疫苗政策后，再次面临保守派的强烈反弹。此前，在另一起单独的驱逐案件中，他已两次引发最高法院的干预。
马萨诸塞州美国地区法院法官布赖恩·墨菲（Brian Murphy）的裁决是一系列高调阻止政府政策但随后在上诉中被推翻的最新判决之一，这引发了美国司法部的严厉批评，并加剧了对其记录的审查。
“墨菲法官一年能被推翻多少次？”司法部副部长托德·布兰奇（Todd Blanche）在社交平台X上写道。“就在他因多次拒绝遵守法律而被暂停职务的同一天，他又做出了另一项激进的裁决。我们将继续上诉这些违法裁决，并且我们会一直胜诉。
“问题是，这位法官能承受多少尴尬？”
周一早些时候，美国第一巡回上诉法院暂停了墨菲阻止美国国土安全部第三国驱逐政策的裁决。墨菲的裁决阻止了国土安全部驱逐法院文件中称可能涉及数千名非法移民的人，而这一裁决延续了他去年做出的类似相关决定，但均被最高法院驳回。
在疫苗案件中，由医疗组织提起诉讼，针对卫生与公众服务部部长小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪（Robert F. Kennedy Jr.），墨菲发布了一项全面的初步禁令，认定肯尼迪通过修订美国疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）的疫苗政策可能违反了法律。
在这两个案例中，墨菲的裁决都干扰了特朗普政府的核心议程——打击移民和调整疫苗强制令——这引起了右翼的不满。
墨菲在疫苗案件中的裁决为医疗组织提供了初步救济，暂停了2026年1月的免疫接种计划，该计划减少了儿童疫苗要求的数量，并在诉讼过程中废除了新任命的疫苗咨询委员会及其决定。
墨菲在其命令中引用卡尔·萨根（Carl Sagan）的话说，科学是“我们拥有的最好工具”，并在阻止CDC新疫苗计划时吹捧了疫苗的有效性。
明尼苏达大学法学院教授伊兰·乌尔曼（Ilan Wurman）质疑他所认为的法官的“双重标准”。
“当我在针对政府的新冠诉讼中提起诉讼时，法院经常表示必须尊重公共卫生专家，”乌尔曼说。“我假设这里存在双重标准有很好的理由？或者马萨诸塞州的联邦法官比其他人更看重某些卫生专家？”
印第安纳州共和党参议员吉姆·班克斯（Jim Banks）表示，民主党任命的法官在跨性别政策上支持拜登政府和进步组织，这些政策对性别和性别的看法过于宽泛，班克斯称这与科学相悖，也与墨菲的裁决不一致。
“进步地区法院法官声称小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪的疫苗政策不基于科学，却对拜登的激进性别政策毫无异议。看来是他们不遵循科学，”班克斯说。
墨菲首次引起关注是在去年6月，最高法院以6-3的裁决暂停了他关于第三方驱逐政策的禁令。一周后，最高法院又罕见地以7-2的裁决告诫该法官无视其决定。
乔治华盛顿大学法学院教授乔纳森·图利（Jonathan Turley）当时指出，墨菲对最高法院“强硬抵制”。
“无论你对是非曲直有何看法，这种审判级别的‘流氓法官’存在会使整个系统无法运转，”图利说。
阿什利·奥利弗（Ashley Oliver）是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道记者，报道司法部和法律事务。请将新闻线索发送至 ashley.oliver@fox.com。
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.
University of Minnesota law school professor Ilan Wurman questioned what he viewed as the judge’s “double standard.”
“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.
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.