The Department of Justice on Tuesday filed a motion accusing a federal judge appointed by President Biden of “unprecedented defiance” of a Supreme Court ruling issued the day before.

On Monday, the high court granted the Trump administration’s request to lift a nationwide injunction that required immigrants be given “meaningful” notice before being deported to countries with which they have no prior connection.

The Monday ruling came down in response to an order issued in May by a U.S. District Court judge in Boston, Brian E. Murphy. The judge’s nationwide directive had blocked the administration from deporting migrants to so-called third countries without ensuring they could first be allowed to present claims that they could face harm or torture in those destinations. 

After the Supreme Court ruling, Judge Murphy declared he did not interpret it as overturning his prior order. He said in a docket-only order filed Tuesday that his May order “remains in full force and effect, notwithstanding today’s stay of the preliminary Injunction.”

While Democrats have long accused the Trump administration of flouting judicial rulings — including those from the Supreme Court — the administration said the shoe is on the other foot. “Last night, hours after the Supreme Court 6-3 blocked a Boston district judge’s lawless preliminary injunction preventing the government from removing the worst of the worst illegal aliens to third countries, the district judge announced business as usual and said its orders enforcing the injunction remained in effect,” the chief of staff at the Department of Justice, Chad Mizelle, wrote on X. 

“When a single district judge immediately and flagrantly defies the Supreme Court, that is not the rule of law—it is an Article III insurrection.”

Solicitor General D. John Sauer submitted a request for clarification from the high court. Mr. Sauer contends that Judge Murphy’s stance constitutes a direct challenge to the Supreme Court’s authority: “The district court’s ruling of last night 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.”

At the heart of the disagreement is whether Judge Murphy’s May order, which blocked the men’s deportation to South Sudan, was effectively nullified by the Supreme Court’s decision. The group of eight migrants, currently held in an American facility in Djibouti, is contesting their removal, citing potential persecution in South Sudan.

The justice department says the Supreme Court ruling vacates Judge Murphy’s order. “There is currently no injunction in place barring the removal of the criminal aliens in Djibouti,” the DOJ said, adding it “is obviously wrong; and in turn, following this court’s stay, there is no longer any injunction limiting the government’s conduct here.”

To cloud matters further, the Supreme Court did not specify which aspects of Judge Murphy’s rulings were overturned in its Monday decision. A dissenting opinion from a liberal justice, Sonia Sotomayor, underscored her belief that Judge Murphy’s May order remained unaffected. 

“Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.