Trump admin, supporters furious over federal judges' rulings but face uphill battle to remove them

A federal judge in Massachusetts is drawing renewed criticism from the Trump administration and conservative commentators following a decision to block changes to federal vaccine policy, adding to scrutiny of his broader record on high-profile cases.

Vaccine Policy Ruling

U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy last issued a preliminary injunction halting implementation of revisions to the childhood immunization schedule announced in January 2026 by the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The changes would have reduced the number of routinely recommended childhood vaccines. 

Murphy also paused new appointments to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a key body that shapes federal vaccine recommendations.

Murphy explained in his 45-page ruling that the reconstitution of ACIP likely violates federal law, including the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s requirements for balanced membership and relevant expertise, as well as procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act. He also stayed all prior votes taken by the reconstituted panel and postponed an upcoming ACIP meeting.

Public health groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, argued that the Trump administration’s changes bypassed established scientific processes and could undermine public confidence in vaccines. Murphy’s decision sided with those groups and echoed their concerns.

Because Murphy’s order is a preliminary injunction, it does not resolve the case on the merits. The administration has vowed to appeal, with an HHS spokesperson expressing confidence in eventual success.

Murphy’s Broader Judicial Record 

Appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2024 by President Joe Biden, Murphy has presided over several high-profile challenges to Trump administration policies across immigration, health, research funding and energy sectors.

Several of his high-profile rulings have been reversed on appeal, including by the Supreme Court.

A notable example involves the administration’s “third-country” deportation policy, which permits expedited removal of certain migrants to nations other than their origin countries without ties or full due process protections. Murphy has repeatedly enjoined aspects of the policy.

The high court intervened twice in the litigation: first with a 6-3 emergency stay allowing deportations to proceed in specific cases, and later with a rare 7-2 order, with Justice Elena Kagan joining conservatives in admonishing Murphy for flouting the high court’s earlier decision. 

On Monday, the same day as the vaccine ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit paused Murphy’s latest block on third-country deportations, allowing the policy to continue during appeals.

Administration Response

The Justice Department and allies quickly condemned Murphy’s vaccine decision.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche posted on X shortly after the ruling: “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. The question is, how much embarrassment can this Judge take?”

An HHS spokesperson said the department expects to appeal the vaccine ruling and expressed confidence that it will ultimately prevail.

Groups aligned with Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement characterized the decision as judicial overreach and argued that the changes advocated by the committee should not be controversial.

Other Judges Facing Backlash

Murphy is not alone among federal judges drawing backlash from conservatives for rulings against Trump policies.

Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has drawn intense scrutiny for several rulings, including an order blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Venezuelan men accused of gang ties under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. 

District Judge Tanya Chutkan, also of the District of Columbia, has faced criticism for her handling of cases related to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, including her rejection of broad executive immunity arguments advanced by former President Donald Trump. 

Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee in the same court, has been faulted by conservatives for allowing civil lawsuits against Trump and extremist groups to proceed under expansive theories of conspiracy and incitement.

Can activist judges face discipline?

Under the U.S. Constitution, federal judges hold their offices “during good Behaviour” and can be removed from office only through impeachment by a majority vote of the House of Representatives followed by conviction by a two-thirds vote in the Senate for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” 

Historically, however, impeachment has been reserved for serious ethical violations, criminal misconduct, or clear abuses of power. Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached, and just eight have been convicted and removed – the most recent in 2010.

Some critics argue that so-called activist judges should face impeachment for politically motivated rulings. For example, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Tex.) has introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg, alleging that he used “his judicial position to advance political gain” and interfered with “the President’s constitutional prerogatives.”

Most legal observers, however, view impeachment in such circumstances as unlikely. 

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364) establishes a separate process for addressing allegations of judicial misconduct or disability that fall short of impeachable offenses.

Under the Act, any person may file a complaint with the clerk of the appropriate federal court of appeals alleging conduct “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” The chief judge conducts an initial review and may dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, challenges the merits of a ruling, or is based on allegations lacking sufficient evidence that misconduct has occurred.  

If the complaint proceeds, it may be investigated by a special committee, reviewed by the circuit’s judicial council, and, in rare cases, referred to the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Available sanctions, however, are limited. They include private censure or public reprimands, temporary reassignment of cases, or requests for voluntary retirement – but not removal from office.

The Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg last July, alleging that he made improper public comments about President Trump and his administration. That complaint was dismissed on the ground that it lacked sufficient supporting evidence and failed to allege sanctionable misconduct. 

Those seeking to impose penalties on federal judges – particularly based on disagreement with their rulings – face a steep uphill battle. The Constitution sets an intentionally high bar for removal, reserving impeachment for the most serious misconduct, while the statutory complaint process expressly excludes challenges to the merits of judicial decisions and offers only limited sanctions. 

Meaningful discipline is therefore both rare and difficult to achieve in practice.