Rep. Andy Ogles has introduced articles of impeachment against an Obama-appointed federal judge who issued a stay blocking the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for Somali nationals, a move the congressman calls outright defiance of the Supreme Court.

Judge Allison Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued the stay Friday, temporarily preventing the administration from carrying out its termination of TPS for Somalis. The termination was set to take effect Tuesday. Burroughs declared the termination "null, void, and of no legal effect" while both sides prepare legal briefs, AP News reported.

Ogles, a Republican from Tennessee, responded by filing his impeachment resolution in the House, accusing Burroughs of committing "high crimes and misdemeanors" by ignoring federal statute and Supreme Court precedent. The resolution, first obtained by Fox News Digital, charges that Burroughs "defied the authority of both Federal law and the Supreme Court."

The confrontation marks the latest escalation in a running clash between the Trump administration and lower-court judges over immigration enforcement, and the sharpest congressional response yet to a judiciary that critics say has treated the Supreme Court's own rulings as suggestions rather than binding law.

Burroughs issued her stay days after the Supreme Court limited lower courts on TPS

The Supreme Court ruled in June in Mullin v. Doe, a decision that significantly curbed lower courts' ability to block TPS decisions. The ruling was widely understood as clearing the path for the administration to wind down TPS designations without district judges intervening at every turn. The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision backed the administration's authority on both TPS termination and asylum policy at the border.

But plaintiffs in the Somali TPS case, led by the advocacy group African Communities Together, filed an amended complaint designed to work around the high court's ruling. The amended complaint alleged that the administration's TPS termination was motivated by racial and national-origin discrimination. Burroughs found the argument sufficient to issue her stay.

Ogles called the maneuver a transparent end-run. His resolution states that Burroughs "attempted to get around the Supreme Court's ruling in Mullin v. Doe by entertaining spurious allegations of racial and national-origin discrimination against an Administration that has chosen to not renew a single temporary protected status designation."

That last clause matters. The administration has declined to renew TPS for every country whose designation came up, not just Somalia. If the policy applies across the board regardless of the nationality involved, the discrimination claim faces a steep factual climb. Ogles and the administration argue the blanket approach undercuts the racial-motive theory on its face.

DHS counsel accused lower courts of 'defiance, obstruction, and delay'

DHS General Counsel James Percival posted on X the same Friday Burroughs issued her stay, making clear the administration views the pattern of lower-court blocks as something more than ordinary legal disagreement.

"There is no serious debate about what is going on in these cases, defiance, obstruction, and delay."

Percival's use of "these cases", plural, signals the administration sees Burroughs' order as part of a broader pattern of judicial resistance to its immigration agenda. The Trump administration has also asked the Supreme Court to lift lower-court blocks on ending TPS for Syria and Haiti, with the Department of Justice arguing those cases present materially similar legal issues, the Washington Examiner reported.

The Department of Homeland Security has maintained a blunt position on TPS itself. "Temporary means temporary," the agency said in a statement regarding the Somali designation.

TPS, Temporary Protected Status, allows nationals from designated countries to remain in the United States and work legally for periods of six, twelve, or eighteen months when conditions in their home country, such as armed conflict or natural disaster, are deemed too dangerous for return. The designation requires periodic renewal by the secretary of homeland security. The administration's position is that the statute gives the secretary sole discretion over whether to renew, and that courts have no authority to second-guess that call.

Over a thousand Somali immigrants face deportation if the stay is lifted

Burroughs' order carries immediate, concrete stakes. The court found "weighty" consequences if Somalia's TPS designation expired, including risks of detention, deportation, physical violence, and family separation for more than one thousand people. While the stay remains in effect, those with TPS status or pending applications retain work authorization and protection against removal.

President Trump had announced the termination in forceful terms. He cited Somali gang activity in Minnesota and a fraud scheme allegedly linked to the al-Shabaab terrorist group as grounds for ending the program. The administration's broader immigration enforcement actions have included high-profile deportation cases involving individuals whose legal protections were revoked by the State Department.

Ogles framed the issue in stark terms in a statement posted alongside his resolution.

"America is not Africa's dumping ground. We will end Temporary Protected Status, remove those who have no lawful right to remain, and put the sovereignty of the American people FIRST."

He told Fox News Digital directly:

"This judicial activist's obstruction of the people's will must be stopped. Judge Burroughs must be impeached."

Prior impeachment push against a federal judge stalled in the House

Ogles' resolution is not the first impeachment effort against a federal judge during Trump's second term. Congressional allies of the president have filed several such resolutions. But the track record is mixed at best.

An earlier effort to impeach Judge James Boasberg fell flat after senior House Republicans argued it was not the most effective approach to reining in judicial overreach. That outcome raised questions about whether GOP leadership has the appetite for impeachment as a tool against the judiciary, or whether these resolutions serve primarily as political statements.

Ogles' case against Burroughs may carry more weight than the Boasberg effort, however, because it rests on a specific Supreme Court ruling that directly addressed the question at hand. If Mullin v. Doe curbed lower courts' ability to block TPS decisions, and Burroughs issued a block anyway by accepting a repackaged complaint, the argument that she defied binding precedent is at least straightforward, even if impeachment remains a heavy instrument.

Fox News Digital reported reaching out to the Massachusetts district court for comment on Ogles' impeachment threat. No response was noted. The court where Burroughs sits has not publicly addressed the resolution.

Burroughs, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2014 by then-President Barack Obama, has not issued a public statement on the impeachment filing. The political debate over TPS has drawn responses from figures across the spectrum, with some Democrats calling the Supreme Court's ruling itself misguided.

Ogles calls Burroughs' stay a test of congressional resolve

Just The News reported that Ogles described his filing as a direct response to what he called Burroughs' decision to ignore both federal law and the Supreme Court's authority. His resolution accuses her of "high crimes and misdemeanors", the constitutional standard for impeachment, on the grounds that she knowingly acted outside her jurisdiction.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, the federal statute governing TPS, has been read by the administration and its allies as barring courts from reviewing the homeland security secretary's decisions on TPS designations. Breitbart reported that Ogles specifically cited this provision as the basis for his claim that Burroughs exceeded her authority.

Whether the House Judiciary Committee takes up the resolution remains an open question. Senior Republicans have shown reluctance in the past. But the political dynamics may be shifting. Resistance to the Supreme Court's TPS ruling has come not only from lower-court judges but from elected officials in blue cities who have vowed to defy the decision outright.

If the pattern holds, lower courts issuing creative workarounds, advocacy groups filing amended complaints designed to dodge each new Supreme Court ruling, and local officials openly refusing to comply, the question of accountability moves from the courtroom to Congress.

The Constitution gives the House the power of impeachment for a reason. Whether Republicans have the will to use it is a different question from whether the case warrants it.