update - summary of the (literally) 100's of restraining orders issued against Trump for immigration bullshit
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Another federal judge expresses skepticism over Trump law firm executive orders
Another federal judge in Washington has expressed skepticism about the legality of a Trump administration executive order targeting a prominent law firm, saying he was concerned that the clear purpose of the edict was punishment.
U.S. District Judge John Bates had already temporarily halted President Donald Trump's executive order against the firm of Jenner & Block but heard arguments Monday on a request by the firm to block it permanently. Lawyers for two other firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — made similar arguments last week to judges who appeared receptive to their positions.
Like the other judges, Bates did not immediately rule but repeatedly pushed back against a Justice Department lawyer's claims that the orders against Jenner and other law firms were not meant to punish them. The actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.
“It’s trying to punish Jenner by stopping the flow of money to Jenner,” Bates said. He later asked: “Isn’t it logical that clients are going to be reluctant to engage Jenner & Block if they know there’s a real chance that Jenner and Block isn’t going to be able to go into a federal building or talk to federal agencies?”
Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson said it was premature to make that assessment because guidelines governing how the executive order is to be implemented had not yet come out.
Michael Attanasio, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Jenner & Block, said it was “surreal” to listen to the Justice Department's “verbal gymnastics” in rationalizing the order.
“This order is designed to do one thing: it’s designed to punish a law firm because of the cases it take and because of its affiliation with a critic of the president,” Attanasio said. That's a reference to the fact that the executive order against the firm takes note that Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller's team that investigated Trump during his first term over potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign.
"All we need to do is read this thing," Attanasio said. “It reeks of unconstitutionality. It should be set aside in its entirety.”
Each of the law firms subject to an executive order that has challenged it in court has succeeded in getting it temporarily blocked. Other firms, by contrast, have opted to preemptively reach agreements with the White House to avoid getting targeted.
On Monday, Virginia Rep. Gerald Connolly, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and another member of the panel, California Rep. Dave Min, sent letters to law firms that have settled with the administration seeking details about the terms of the deals.
Eric Tucker, The Associated Press
Another federal judge in Washington has expressed skepticism about the legality of a Trump administration executive order targeting a prominent law firm, saying he was concerned that the clear purpose of the edict was punishment.
U.S. District Judge John Bates had already temporarily halted President Donald Trump's executive order against the firm of Jenner & Block but heard arguments Monday on a request by the firm to block it permanently. Lawyers for two other firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — made similar arguments last week to judges who appeared receptive to their positions.
Like the other judges, Bates did not immediately rule but repeatedly pushed back against a Justice Department lawyer's claims that the orders against Jenner and other law firms were not meant to punish them. The actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.
“It’s trying to punish Jenner by stopping the flow of money to Jenner,” Bates said. He later asked: “Isn’t it logical that clients are going to be reluctant to engage Jenner & Block if they know there’s a real chance that Jenner and Block isn’t going to be able to go into a federal building or talk to federal agencies?”
Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson said it was premature to make that assessment because guidelines governing how the executive order is to be implemented had not yet come out.
Michael Attanasio, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Jenner & Block, said it was “surreal” to listen to the Justice Department's “verbal gymnastics” in rationalizing the order.
“This order is designed to do one thing: it’s designed to punish a law firm because of the cases it take and because of its affiliation with a critic of the president,” Attanasio said. That's a reference to the fact that the executive order against the firm takes note that Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller's team that investigated Trump during his first term over potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign.
"All we need to do is read this thing," Attanasio said. “It reeks of unconstitutionality. It should be set aside in its entirety.”
Each of the law firms subject to an executive order that has challenged it in court has succeeded in getting it temporarily blocked. Other firms, by contrast, have opted to preemptively reach agreements with the White House to avoid getting targeted.
On Monday, Virginia Rep. Gerald Connolly, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and another member of the panel, California Rep. Dave Min, sent letters to law firms that have settled with the administration seeking details about the terms of the deals.
Eric Tucker, The Associated Press
American zionists are still sending the cops out on american students.
Judge bars deportations of Venezuelans from South Texas under 18th-century wartime law
A federal judge on Thursday barred the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under an 18th-century wartime law and said President Donald Trump's invocation of it was “unlawful.”
U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is the first judge to rule that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used against people who, the Republican administration claims, are gang members invading the United States.
“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States,” wrote Rodriguez, who was nominated by Trump in 2018. But, the judge said, "the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
In March, Trump issued a proclamation claiming that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was invading the U.S. He said he had special powers to deport immigrants, identified by his administration as gang members, without the usual court proceedings.
"The Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful,” Rodriguez wrote.
The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times before in U.S. history, most recently during World War II, when it was cited to intern Japanese-Americans.
The proclamation triggered a flurry of litigation as the administration tried to ship migrants it claimed were gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
Rodriguez’s ruling is significant because it is the first formal permanent injunction against the administration using the AEA and contends the president is misusing the law. "Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, in response to the ruling.
Rodriguez agreed, noting that the provision has only been used during the two World Wars and the War of 1812. Trump claimed Tren de Aragua was acting at the behest of the Venezuelan government, but Rodriguez found that the activities the administration accused it of did not amount to an invasion or “predatory incursion,” as the statute requires.
“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,” Rodriguez wrote. “Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA.”
If the administration appeals, it would go first to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That is among the nation’s most conservative appeals courts and it also has ruled against what it saw as overreach on immigration matters by both the Obama and Biden administrations. In those cases, Democratic administrations had sought to make it easier for immigrants to remain in the U.S.
The administration, as it has in other cases challenging its expansive view of presidential power, could turn to appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, in the form of an emergency motion for a stay pending an appeal.
The Supreme Court already has weighed in once on the issue of deportations under the AEA. The justices held that migrants alleged to be gang members must be given “reasonable time” to contest their removal from the country. The court has not specified the length of time.
It’s possible that the losing side in the 5th Circuit would file an emergency appeal with the justices that also would ask them to short-circuit lower court action in favor of a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court. Such a decision likely would be months away, at least.
The Texas case is just one piece of a tangle of litigation sparked by Trump's proclamation.
The ACLU initially filed suit in the nation's capital to block deportations. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary hold on removals and ordered the administration turn around planes that had left with detainees headed to El Salvador, a directive that was apparently ignored. Later, the Supreme Court weighed in.
The justices stepped in again late last month with an unusual postmidnight order halting deportations from North Texas, where the ACLU contended the administration was preparing for another round of flights to El Salvador.
___
Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Lindsay Whitehurst and Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
Nicholas Riccardi, The Associated Press
A federal judge on Thursday barred the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under an 18th-century wartime law and said President Donald Trump's invocation of it was “unlawful.”
U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is the first judge to rule that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used against people who, the Republican administration claims, are gang members invading the United States.
“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States,” wrote Rodriguez, who was nominated by Trump in 2018. But, the judge said, "the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
In March, Trump issued a proclamation claiming that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was invading the U.S. He said he had special powers to deport immigrants, identified by his administration as gang members, without the usual court proceedings.
"The Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful,” Rodriguez wrote.
The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times before in U.S. history, most recently during World War II, when it was cited to intern Japanese-Americans.
The proclamation triggered a flurry of litigation as the administration tried to ship migrants it claimed were gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
Rodriguez’s ruling is significant because it is the first formal permanent injunction against the administration using the AEA and contends the president is misusing the law. "Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, in response to the ruling.
Rodriguez agreed, noting that the provision has only been used during the two World Wars and the War of 1812. Trump claimed Tren de Aragua was acting at the behest of the Venezuelan government, but Rodriguez found that the activities the administration accused it of did not amount to an invasion or “predatory incursion,” as the statute requires.
“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,” Rodriguez wrote. “Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA.”
If the administration appeals, it would go first to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That is among the nation’s most conservative appeals courts and it also has ruled against what it saw as overreach on immigration matters by both the Obama and Biden administrations. In those cases, Democratic administrations had sought to make it easier for immigrants to remain in the U.S.
The administration, as it has in other cases challenging its expansive view of presidential power, could turn to appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, in the form of an emergency motion for a stay pending an appeal.
The Supreme Court already has weighed in once on the issue of deportations under the AEA. The justices held that migrants alleged to be gang members must be given “reasonable time” to contest their removal from the country. The court has not specified the length of time.
It’s possible that the losing side in the 5th Circuit would file an emergency appeal with the justices that also would ask them to short-circuit lower court action in favor of a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court. Such a decision likely would be months away, at least.
The Texas case is just one piece of a tangle of litigation sparked by Trump's proclamation.
The ACLU initially filed suit in the nation's capital to block deportations. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary hold on removals and ordered the administration turn around planes that had left with detainees headed to El Salvador, a directive that was apparently ignored. Later, the Supreme Court weighed in.
The justices stepped in again late last month with an unusual postmidnight order halting deportations from North Texas, where the ACLU contended the administration was preparing for another round of flights to El Salvador.
___
Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Lindsay Whitehurst and Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
Nicholas Riccardi, The Associated Press
The Justice Department ended a decades-old school desegregation order. Others are expected to fall
WASHINGTON (AP) — When the Justice Department lifted a school desegregation order in Louisiana this week, officials called its continued existence a “historical wrong” and suggested that others dating to the Civil Rights Movement should be reconsidered.
The end of the 1966 legal agreement with Plaquemines Parish schools announced Tuesday shows the Trump administration is “getting America refocused on our bright future,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said.
Inside the Justice Department, officials appointed by President Donald Trump have expressed desire to withdraw from other desegregation orders they see as an unnecessary burden on schools, according to a person familiar with the issue who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Dozens of school districts across the South remain under court-enforced agreements dictating steps to work toward integration, decades after the Supreme Court struck down racial segregation in education. Some see the court orders' endurance as a sign the government never eradicated segregation, while officials in Louisiana and at some schools see the orders as bygone relics that should be wiped away.
The Justice Department opened a wave of cases in the 1960s, after Congress unleashed the department to go after schools that resisted desegregation. Known as consent decrees, the orders can be lifted when districts prove they have eliminated segregation and its legacy.
The small Louisiana district has a long-running integration case
The Trump administration called the Plaquemines case an example of administrative neglect. The district in the Mississippi River Delta Basin in southeast Louisiana was found to have integrated in 1975, but the case was to stay under the court’s watch for another year. The judge died the same year, and the court record “appears to be lost to time,” according to a court filing.
“Given that this case has been stayed for a half-century with zero action by the court, the parties or any third-party, the parties are satisfied that the United States’ claims have been fully resolved,” according to a joint filing from the Justice Department and the office of Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill.
Plaquemines Superintendent Shelley Ritz said Justice Department officials still visited every year as recently as 2023 and requested data on topics including hiring and discipline. She said the paperwork was a burden for her district of fewer than 4,000 students.
Louisiana “got its act together decades ago,” said Leo Terrell, senior counsel to the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, in a statement. He said the dismissal corrects a historical wrong, adding it’s “past time to acknowledge how far we have come.”
Murrill asked the Justice Department to close other school orders in her state. In a statement, she vowed to work with Louisiana schools to help them “put the past in the past.”
Civil rights activists say that's the wrong move. Many orders have been only loosely enforced in recent decades, but that doesn't mean problems are solved, said Johnathan Smith, who worked in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division during President Joe Biden's administration.
“It probably means the opposite — that the school district remains segregated. And in fact, most of these districts are now more segregated today than they were in 1954," said Smith, who is now chief of staff and general counsel for the National Center for Youth Law.
Desegregation orders involve a range of instructions
More than 130 school systems are under Justice Department desegregation orders, according to records in a court filing this year. The vast majority are in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, with smaller numbers in states like Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. Some other districts remain under separate desegregation agreements with the Education Department.
The orders can include a range of remedies, from busing requirements to district policies allowing students in predominately Black schools to transfer to predominately white ones. The agreements are between the school district and the U.S. government, but other parties can ask the court to intervene when signs of segregation resurface.
Last year, a Louisiana school board closed a predominately Black elementary school near a petrochemical facility after the NAACP said it disproportionately exposed Black students to health risks. The board made the decision after the NAACP filed a motion invoking a decades-old desegregation order at St. John the Baptist Parish.
The dismissal has raised alarms among some who fear it could undo decades of progress. Research on districts released from orders has found that many saw greater increases in racial segregation compared with those under court orders.
“In very many cases, schools quite rapidly resegregate, and there are new civil rights concerns for students,” said Halley Potter, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who studies educational inequity.
Ending the orders would send a signal that desegregation is no longer a priority, said Robert Westley, a professor of antidiscrimination law at Tulane University Law School in New Orleans.
“It’s really just signaling that the backsliding that has started some time ago is complete," Westley said. “The United States government doesn’t really care anymore of dealing with problems of racial discrimination in the schools. It’s over.”
Any attempt to drop further cases would face heavy opposition in court, said Raymond Pierce, president and CEO of the Southern Education Foundation.
“It represents a disregard for education opportunities for a large section of America. It represents a disregard for America’s need to have an educated workforce," he said. “And it represents a disregard for the rule of law.”
___
Associated Press writer Sharon Lurye contributed from New Orleans.
___
The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Collin Binkley, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — When the Justice Department lifted a school desegregation order in Louisiana this week, officials called its continued existence a “historical wrong” and suggested that others dating to the Civil Rights Movement should be reconsidered.
The end of the 1966 legal agreement with Plaquemines Parish schools announced Tuesday shows the Trump administration is “getting America refocused on our bright future,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said.
Inside the Justice Department, officials appointed by President Donald Trump have expressed desire to withdraw from other desegregation orders they see as an unnecessary burden on schools, according to a person familiar with the issue who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Dozens of school districts across the South remain under court-enforced agreements dictating steps to work toward integration, decades after the Supreme Court struck down racial segregation in education. Some see the court orders' endurance as a sign the government never eradicated segregation, while officials in Louisiana and at some schools see the orders as bygone relics that should be wiped away.
The Justice Department opened a wave of cases in the 1960s, after Congress unleashed the department to go after schools that resisted desegregation. Known as consent decrees, the orders can be lifted when districts prove they have eliminated segregation and its legacy.
The small Louisiana district has a long-running integration case
The Trump administration called the Plaquemines case an example of administrative neglect. The district in the Mississippi River Delta Basin in southeast Louisiana was found to have integrated in 1975, but the case was to stay under the court’s watch for another year. The judge died the same year, and the court record “appears to be lost to time,” according to a court filing.
“Given that this case has been stayed for a half-century with zero action by the court, the parties or any third-party, the parties are satisfied that the United States’ claims have been fully resolved,” according to a joint filing from the Justice Department and the office of Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill.
Plaquemines Superintendent Shelley Ritz said Justice Department officials still visited every year as recently as 2023 and requested data on topics including hiring and discipline. She said the paperwork was a burden for her district of fewer than 4,000 students.
Louisiana “got its act together decades ago,” said Leo Terrell, senior counsel to the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, in a statement. He said the dismissal corrects a historical wrong, adding it’s “past time to acknowledge how far we have come.”
Murrill asked the Justice Department to close other school orders in her state. In a statement, she vowed to work with Louisiana schools to help them “put the past in the past.”
Civil rights activists say that's the wrong move. Many orders have been only loosely enforced in recent decades, but that doesn't mean problems are solved, said Johnathan Smith, who worked in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division during President Joe Biden's administration.
“It probably means the opposite — that the school district remains segregated. And in fact, most of these districts are now more segregated today than they were in 1954," said Smith, who is now chief of staff and general counsel for the National Center for Youth Law.
Desegregation orders involve a range of instructions
More than 130 school systems are under Justice Department desegregation orders, according to records in a court filing this year. The vast majority are in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, with smaller numbers in states like Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. Some other districts remain under separate desegregation agreements with the Education Department.
The orders can include a range of remedies, from busing requirements to district policies allowing students in predominately Black schools to transfer to predominately white ones. The agreements are between the school district and the U.S. government, but other parties can ask the court to intervene when signs of segregation resurface.
Last year, a Louisiana school board closed a predominately Black elementary school near a petrochemical facility after the NAACP said it disproportionately exposed Black students to health risks. The board made the decision after the NAACP filed a motion invoking a decades-old desegregation order at St. John the Baptist Parish.
The dismissal has raised alarms among some who fear it could undo decades of progress. Research on districts released from orders has found that many saw greater increases in racial segregation compared with those under court orders.
“In very many cases, schools quite rapidly resegregate, and there are new civil rights concerns for students,” said Halley Potter, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who studies educational inequity.
Ending the orders would send a signal that desegregation is no longer a priority, said Robert Westley, a professor of antidiscrimination law at Tulane University Law School in New Orleans.
“It’s really just signaling that the backsliding that has started some time ago is complete," Westley said. “The United States government doesn’t really care anymore of dealing with problems of racial discrimination in the schools. It’s over.”
Any attempt to drop further cases would face heavy opposition in court, said Raymond Pierce, president and CEO of the Southern Education Foundation.
“It represents a disregard for education opportunities for a large section of America. It represents a disregard for America’s need to have an educated workforce," he said. “And it represents a disregard for the rule of law.”
___
Associated Press writer Sharon Lurye contributed from New Orleans.
___
The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Collin Binkley, The Associated Press
Trump’s immigration agenda is running into a wall of resistance from the courts
Dozens of judges across the country — appointed by presidents of both parties — have ruled against Trump’s audacious immigration policies.
President Donald Trump surged back to power on a promise to mount a mass deportation campaign. But large swaths of that effort have been blocked by judges across the country, who say the bumper sticker slogans have translated into flagrantly illegal policies.
A POLITICO review of hundreds of lawsuits reveals that despite Trump’s aggressive border crackdown, he’s been largely stymied on the other planks of his immigration agenda. Courts are throwing up increasingly fierce resistance to his efforts to swiftly detain and deport migrants living in the United States. And his attempts to strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants lawfully in the country have so far failed.
Trump’s high-profile, and often haphazard, deportation moves have already generated three brushbacks from the Supreme Court, which reminded the administration of its obligation to provide “reasonable” due process to people whom the government has accused, often with little public evidence, of being “alien enemies.” And dozens of district and appellate court judges — appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents — have delivered even starker rebukes to the White House.
Trump’s use of war powers to quickly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members is “a path to perfect lawlessness,” one judge wrote. The administration’s detention of students with anti-Israel views harkens to the Red Scare and McCarthyism, concluded another. The denial of due process to some deportees could result in “persecution, torture, and death,” wrote a third.
Trump and his top domestic policy adviser, Stephen Miller, were aiming for “shock and awe” on immigration, said Elizabeth Goitein, a civil liberties and national security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. But in doing so, they have repeatedly overstepped their authority, she said.
“The courts are recognizing it for what it is,” Goitein said.
In response to adverse rulings, top Trump aides have assailed the courts, blasting “rogue” and “radical” judges. Trump himself has called for the impeachment of some of the judges. On Wednesday alone, Miller accused judges blocking Trump’s deportation policies of a “coup,” an “insurrection” and of “incinerating our Constitution.” The next day, yet another court ruling blocked some of Trump’s deportation plans — this time, from a judge whom Trump himself appointed in his first term. (Miller has been silent on that ruling, though the White House criticized it in a press office statement.)
In court, the Justice Department has not adopted the White House’s escalating rhetoric but has warned of “a now troubling pattern of district courts superintending immigration proceedings.”
Trump’s immigration agenda has not been uniformly foiled. He has deployed thousands of troops to the southern border, empowered immigration authorities and overseen a steep decline in illegal border crossings. Importantly, many of the policies halted by district judges have yet to work their way through appeals courts and to the Supreme Court for final review, where Trump hopes to prevail.
Still, in just over three months, Trump has racked up an astonishing string of initial legal losses — particularly on his multifaceted efforts to carry out deportations with far less due process than the standard immigration-court system affords.
Here’s a look at the growing list of policies that have been struck down or partially halted by the courts:
Summary deportations under the Alien Enemies Act
The Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law meant to expel citizens of an invading foreign nation, had been invoked only three times in U.S. history before Trump used it to target Venezuelans he accused of being part of a criminal gang. He carried out an initial round of deportations under the act on March 15 so quickly that planes took off in the middle of an emergency court hearing as U.S. District Judge James Boasberg tried to stop them. Boasberg has signaled he may hold administration officials in criminal contempt for defying his orders.
Subsequently, judges in Colorado and Texas ruled that Trump has twisted the Alien Enemies Act in ways that exceed his authority. And when immigration authorities appeared to be preparing a second round of abrupt deportations under the act, the Supreme Court intervened in an extraordinary middle-of-the-night order that commanded the administration to stop.
Dozens of judges across the country — appointed by presidents of both parties — have ruled against Trump’s audacious immigration policies.
President Donald Trump surged back to power on a promise to mount a mass deportation campaign. But large swaths of that effort have been blocked by judges across the country, who say the bumper sticker slogans have translated into flagrantly illegal policies.
A POLITICO review of hundreds of lawsuits reveals that despite Trump’s aggressive border crackdown, he’s been largely stymied on the other planks of his immigration agenda. Courts are throwing up increasingly fierce resistance to his efforts to swiftly detain and deport migrants living in the United States. And his attempts to strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants lawfully in the country have so far failed.
Trump’s high-profile, and often haphazard, deportation moves have already generated three brushbacks from the Supreme Court, which reminded the administration of its obligation to provide “reasonable” due process to people whom the government has accused, often with little public evidence, of being “alien enemies.” And dozens of district and appellate court judges — appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents — have delivered even starker rebukes to the White House.
Trump’s use of war powers to quickly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members is “a path to perfect lawlessness,” one judge wrote. The administration’s detention of students with anti-Israel views harkens to the Red Scare and McCarthyism, concluded another. The denial of due process to some deportees could result in “persecution, torture, and death,” wrote a third.
Trump and his top domestic policy adviser, Stephen Miller, were aiming for “shock and awe” on immigration, said Elizabeth Goitein, a civil liberties and national security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. But in doing so, they have repeatedly overstepped their authority, she said.
“The courts are recognizing it for what it is,” Goitein said.
In response to adverse rulings, top Trump aides have assailed the courts, blasting “rogue” and “radical” judges. Trump himself has called for the impeachment of some of the judges. On Wednesday alone, Miller accused judges blocking Trump’s deportation policies of a “coup,” an “insurrection” and of “incinerating our Constitution.” The next day, yet another court ruling blocked some of Trump’s deportation plans — this time, from a judge whom Trump himself appointed in his first term. (Miller has been silent on that ruling, though the White House criticized it in a press office statement.)
In court, the Justice Department has not adopted the White House’s escalating rhetoric but has warned of “a now troubling pattern of district courts superintending immigration proceedings.”
Trump’s immigration agenda has not been uniformly foiled. He has deployed thousands of troops to the southern border, empowered immigration authorities and overseen a steep decline in illegal border crossings. Importantly, many of the policies halted by district judges have yet to work their way through appeals courts and to the Supreme Court for final review, where Trump hopes to prevail.
Still, in just over three months, Trump has racked up an astonishing string of initial legal losses — particularly on his multifaceted efforts to carry out deportations with far less due process than the standard immigration-court system affords.
Here’s a look at the growing list of policies that have been struck down or partially halted by the courts:
Summary deportations under the Alien Enemies Act
The Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law meant to expel citizens of an invading foreign nation, had been invoked only three times in U.S. history before Trump used it to target Venezuelans he accused of being part of a criminal gang. He carried out an initial round of deportations under the act on March 15 so quickly that planes took off in the middle of an emergency court hearing as U.S. District Judge James Boasberg tried to stop them. Boasberg has signaled he may hold administration officials in criminal contempt for defying his orders.
Subsequently, judges in Colorado and Texas ruled that Trump has twisted the Alien Enemies Act in ways that exceed his authority. And when immigration authorities appeared to be preparing a second round of abrupt deportations under the act, the Supreme Court intervened in an extraordinary middle-of-the-night order that commanded the administration to stop.
Deportations to countries other than a migrant’s country of origin
Sometimes, a person who is subject to deportation cannot be legally sent to their country of origin because Congress or the courts have determined they would not be safe there. The Trump administration has tried to get around this issue by quickly deporting people to “third-party” countries.
A federal judge in Massachusetts barred the administration from doing so, and the fight that is now pending at the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Brian Murphy ruled that the third-party deportations, without an individualized assessment of whether the deportees could face torture or persecution, violated due process rights.
Temporary protected status of people fleeing humanitarian crises
The Trump administration has quickly attempted to cancel the legal status of hundreds of thousands of people granted authorization to live in the United States to flee persecution, violence or natural disasters in four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. President Joe Biden’s administration had extended their authorization deep into Trump’s term. But Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to rescind those extensions and set new, more expedited deadlines for the protections to expire.
Two judges — one in California, the other in Massachusetts — have issued wholesale blocks on those policies, staving off, for now, their imminent departure. The administration this week filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court seeking to lift one of those blocks.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia and “Cristian”
The legal fight that has drawn perhaps the strongest language from judges has been the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was living in Maryland and was erroneously deported to El Salvador. The Supreme Court called that deportation “illegal” because an immigration judge had barred the government from sending him to that country. And a conservative appeals court judge called the administration’s conduct “shocking” to fundamental principles of American liberty.
A district judge in Maryland is currently probing the administration’s failure to follow her command to seek Abrego Garcia’s return. Meanwhile, in a case that has not gotten as much public attention, a second Maryland judge recently ordered the return of a man, identified in court papers only as “Cristian,” who was deported to El Salvador on the same day as Abrego Garcia despite a pending asylum claim.
Sometimes, a person who is subject to deportation cannot be legally sent to their country of origin because Congress or the courts have determined they would not be safe there. The Trump administration has tried to get around this issue by quickly deporting people to “third-party” countries.
A federal judge in Massachusetts barred the administration from doing so, and the fight that is now pending at the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Brian Murphy ruled that the third-party deportations, without an individualized assessment of whether the deportees could face torture or persecution, violated due process rights.
Temporary protected status of people fleeing humanitarian crises
The Trump administration has quickly attempted to cancel the legal status of hundreds of thousands of people granted authorization to live in the United States to flee persecution, violence or natural disasters in four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. President Joe Biden’s administration had extended their authorization deep into Trump’s term. But Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to rescind those extensions and set new, more expedited deadlines for the protections to expire.
Two judges — one in California, the other in Massachusetts — have issued wholesale blocks on those policies, staving off, for now, their imminent departure. The administration this week filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court seeking to lift one of those blocks.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia and “Cristian”
The legal fight that has drawn perhaps the strongest language from judges has been the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was living in Maryland and was erroneously deported to El Salvador. The Supreme Court called that deportation “illegal” because an immigration judge had barred the government from sending him to that country. And a conservative appeals court judge called the administration’s conduct “shocking” to fundamental principles of American liberty.
A district judge in Maryland is currently probing the administration’s failure to follow her command to seek Abrego Garcia’s return. Meanwhile, in a case that has not gotten as much public attention, a second Maryland judge recently ordered the return of a man, identified in court papers only as “Cristian,” who was deported to El Salvador on the same day as Abrego Garcia despite a pending asylum claim.
Mahmoud Khalil, Badar Khan Suri, Mohsen Mahdawi and Rumeysa Ozturk
Another group of high-profile cases center on the Trump administration’s attempts to deport college students and academic researchers who have spoken out against Israel.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has sought their rapid deportation by invoking an obscure provision of immigration law that allows him to declare that their presence in the U.S. harms American foreign policy interests. But the academics say they’re being targeted purely because of their pro-Palestinian views in violation of the First Amendment.
A judge in Vermont recently ordered the release of Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia student. Other prominent scholars — Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate student; Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts graduate student; and Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown scholar — remain in detention while their deportation cases lurch slowly forward. In each of those three cases, judges have ordered the administration not to begin deportations until the court cases are resolved.
And in a broader lawsuit, a federal judge rejected the administration’s effort to dismiss claims that its policy targeting pro-Palestinian students is unconstitutional.
Full-time foreign students
No issue better exemplifies the administration’s mad dash to overhaul immigration policies than its botched effort to conduct criminal record checks of 1.3 million foreign students who are studying in the U.S. on valid visas. Officials used the search results to “terminate” the students’ records in a database used to track full-time foreign students — a move that seemed to threaten their legal presence in the country.
But the effort was marred by errors. Many of the students flagged in the search had only minor run-ins with police that do not qualify as a basis to revoke their legal status.
A deluge of lawsuits in dozens of states halted the effort altogether. Judges issued more than 50 restraining orders protecting hundreds of the more than 6,000 students ensnared by the administration’s actions. Eventually, the administration reversed course and abandoned the effort. But some of the lawsuits are still pending as students want to ensure they aren’t targeted again.
Another group of high-profile cases center on the Trump administration’s attempts to deport college students and academic researchers who have spoken out against Israel.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has sought their rapid deportation by invoking an obscure provision of immigration law that allows him to declare that their presence in the U.S. harms American foreign policy interests. But the academics say they’re being targeted purely because of their pro-Palestinian views in violation of the First Amendment.
A judge in Vermont recently ordered the release of Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia student. Other prominent scholars — Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate student; Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts graduate student; and Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown scholar — remain in detention while their deportation cases lurch slowly forward. In each of those three cases, judges have ordered the administration not to begin deportations until the court cases are resolved.
And in a broader lawsuit, a federal judge rejected the administration’s effort to dismiss claims that its policy targeting pro-Palestinian students is unconstitutional.
Full-time foreign students
No issue better exemplifies the administration’s mad dash to overhaul immigration policies than its botched effort to conduct criminal record checks of 1.3 million foreign students who are studying in the U.S. on valid visas. Officials used the search results to “terminate” the students’ records in a database used to track full-time foreign students — a move that seemed to threaten their legal presence in the country.
But the effort was marred by errors. Many of the students flagged in the search had only minor run-ins with police that do not qualify as a basis to revoke their legal status.
A deluge of lawsuits in dozens of states halted the effort altogether. Judges issued more than 50 restraining orders protecting hundreds of the more than 6,000 students ensnared by the administration’s actions. Eventually, the administration reversed course and abandoned the effort. But some of the lawsuits are still pending as students want to ensure they aren’t targeted again.
