Tag: judges

Federal Judge In California Remains At The Ready To Wrest Control Of National Guard From Trump

“The fight doesn’t end here.” Gavin Newsom made that announcement on Thursday, soon after a federal appellate court ruled President Donald Trump retains control over the California National Guard. By Friday morning, the overturned district court judge repeated the mantra, but in subtler, more judicious terms designed to obscure his bias and his intent to halt the president’s use of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles. The apparent plan is now to find the president’s deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which goes to show that judges bent on executing a coup by courts also have six ways to Sunday to rebel against the duly elected president.

After rioters attacked ICE agents and federal property in California, on June 7, 2025, President Trump federalized the California National Guard. Once under federal command, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered thousands of National Guard troops to deploy to Los Angeles. Secretary Hegseth later also deployed some 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles.

Within days of the president’s federalizing of the California National Guard, Governor Newsom filed a multi-count complaint in a San Francisco federal court. Then, at 11:00 a.m., on June 10, 2025, the governor asked the court to immediately (by 1:00 p.m.) grant him an ex parte temporary restraining order, barring the deployment of troops in Los Angeles and directing the president to return control of the National Guard to the governor. Presiding Judge Charlies Breyer instead provided the Trump administration 24 hours to respond to the motion and set a hearing for June 12, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.

Judge Breyer opened the June 12, 2025 hearing by noting he had refused to grant the requested injunction on an ex parte basis, with the Clinton appointee stressing the importance of hearing from both sides before ruling. However, Judge Breyer soon made clear his fist was firmly on Governor Newsom’s side of the scale, with the federal judge appropriating the language of the left and declaring we have no king in America.

It came as no surprise, then, to court listeners that by day’s end Judge Breyer had entered an injunction against President Trump, enjoining him “from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles,” and directing the Commander-in-Chief “to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.” The court stayed his order until noon on Friday, June 13, 2025.

The Trump administration immediately sought a stay of Judge Breyer’s injunction in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — the federal circuit court that hears appeals from district courts in California, among other western states. Within hours, a three-judge panel of the federal appellate court entered an administrative stay of Judge Breyer’s order, keeping the president in charge of the National Guard. The Ninth Circuit then set an expedited briefing schedule and scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, June 17, 2025.

Last Tuesday, Trump appointees Judges Mark Bennette and Eric Miller, joined by Biden-appointee Judge Jennifer Sung, heard the parties’ argument concerning the propriety of the injunction. Two days later, in a unanimous opinion, the court held the Trump administration “made the required strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal,” and stayed the lower court’s injunction against the president. That stay left the California National Guard under federal control and deployed in Los Angeles, as directed by Secretary Hegseth.

In concluding that Trump was likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal, the Ninth Circuit focused on Newsom’s claim that the president lacked authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize the California National Guard. That federal statute authorizes the president to federalize the National Guard of a state whenever, among other things, “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States . . . ”

While Judge Breyer concluded that Trump had failed to establish that he was unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States, the Ninth Circuit rejected the lower court’s reasoning in two respects. First, the three-judge panel concluded that courts owe great deference to the president’s conclusion that regular forces are unable to execute federal law.

Keep reading

Judge Rules MS-13 Gang Member Kilmar Abrego Garcia Should NOT be Detained on His Criminal Charges of Child Trafficking – DOJ Appeals

Federal magistrate judge Barbara Holmes on Sunday ruled MS-13 gang member and wife beater Kilmar Abrego Garcia should not be detained on his criminal charges.

Abrego Garcia will likely remain in custody on an ICE detainer.

“As required by the Bail Reform Act, the Court has reviewed the evidence presented at the June 13 hearing and considered the parties’ arguments and the Pretrial Services report. For the reasons detailed below, the government’s motion for detention is DENIED. Specifically, the Court finds that no detention hearing is authorized under the Bail Reform Act in this case because the government failed to prove that this case involves: (1) a minor victim within the meaning of § 3142(f)(1)(E); (2) a “serious risk” that Abrego will flee, as required by § 3142(f)(2)(A); or, (3) a “serious risk” that Abrego will obstruct justice or otherwise interfere with the integrity of this proceeding, as required by § 3142(f)(2)(B),” the judge wrote in a 51-page memo.

Earlier this month Kilmar Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to human trafficking charges as and fought for his release pending trial.

Abrego Garcia appeared in a Nashville court clad in a red jumpsuit.

A federal grand jury in Tennessee recently indicted Kilmar Abrego Garcia for “transporting undocumented migrants within the United States.”

He was charged with one count of conspiracy to transport aliens and one count of unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens.

According to the indictment, Kilmar Abrego Garcia and co-conspirators from El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and the US were trafficking illegal aliens from 2016 through 2025.

Read the indictment here.

Keep reading

Silvia Delgado, former attorney for “El Chapo,” elected as Judge in Chihuahua; links to drug trafficking expose flaws in legitimacy of New Judicial System promoted by Morena.


On June 1, 2025, Mexico held its first simultaneous elections for over 2,600 judicial positions, including seats in the Supreme Court, as part of the Morena government’s reform aimed at boosting transparency and accountability within the judicial branch.

However, participation was alarmingly low: just 11% in local elections and 13% in the federal race.

This low level of citizen engagement has sparked questions about the legitimacy and representativeness of the new judges.

Amid this context, the election of Silvia Rocío Delgado García as a criminal court judge in the Bravos Judicial District of Chihuahua has unleashed a storm of criticism and concern across Mexico.

Keep reading

DEA Judge Shuts Down Cannabis Manufacturing Case Without Hearing, Company Plans Legal Challenge

The company behind the application, MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, is now preparing to challenge the ruling in federal court and call for the judge’s recusal.

The ruling was issued by DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney II, who dismissed the company’s bid for a marijuana bulk manufacturing license after more than six years of delays. MMJ BioPharma said the decision came without warning and without any opportunity to present evidence or respond to agency claims—calling it a “procedural ambush.”

“This isn’t regulation—it’s an illegal ambush,” said MMJ CEO Duane Boise, who said the company had complied with all requirements under the Controlled Substances Act and FDA pathways.

MMJ, which is developing cannabis-based medicines for Huntington’s disease and multiple sclerosis, submitted a legally binding supply agreement in March 2024 with a DEA-licensed Schedule I facility. The agreement included specific sourcing protocols, defined volume, and DEA Form 222 compliance. Despite that, Mulrooney’s June 16 ruling ignored the document entirely and blocked it from being entered into the record.

Boise accused the DEA of demanding the agreement and then refusing to acknowledge it once submitted. “The agency cannot demand a document, receive it, then declare it irrelevant behind closed doors,” he said.

The order also reversed a previous determination by another administrative judge that certain disputed facts warranted a hearing. Instead, Mulrooney cited internal communications from a DEA investigator that MMJ was never allowed to challenge or respond to—raising concerns of ex parte communications and due process violations.

Keep reading

Judge Blocks Transportation Department From Withholding Funds From States That Defy Federal Immigration Policy

A group of Democratic attorneys general secured a favorable ruling by a federal judge in Rhode Island on June 19 to temporarily block the Trump administration’s plan to withhold transportation grant funding for states that refuse to go along with its immigration polices.

Two days earlier, in the wake of recent anti-immigration riots in Los Angeles rife with looting, destruction of personal property, and physical impediment of immigration officials, Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Sean Duffy said on X: “The @USDOT will NOT fund rogue state actors who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. And to cities that stand by while rioters destroy transportation infrastructure—don’t expect a red cent from DOT, either. Follow the law, or forfeit the funding.”

His X post was in response to President Donald Trump’s Truth Social post that same day saying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers should “do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History.”

“In order to achieve this, we must expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America’s largest Cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside,” the president wrote.

“I want ICE, Border Patrol, and our Great and Patriotic Law Enforcement Officers, to FOCUS on our crime-ridden and deadly Inner Cities, and those places where Sanctuary Cities play such a big role.”

The Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit on May 13 over Duffy’s defunding policy announced in April.

Keep reading

HERE WE GO: Judge Hannah Dugan’s Trial for Obstruction of ICE Agents is OFF the Calendar as Court Possibly Rules on Motion to Dismiss Case

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan’s trial for obstruction of ICE agents is now off the calendar as the court possibly rules on her motion to dismiss the case.

Last month Hannah Dugan moved to dismiss the case against her one day after a federal grand jury indicted her on two counts for obstructing an ICE arrest.

Dugan’s attorneys cited the 10th Amendment, official acts as a judge and judicial immunity.

A federal grand jury previously indicted Milwaukee County judge Hannah Dugan for helping an illegal alien evade ICE agents.

Dugan is facing up to six years in prison and $350,000 in fines.

Hannah Dugan was arrested by the FBI for obstructing an ICE arrest in April.

According to the FBI, Judge Hannah Dugan obstructed an immigration arrest operation last month. Dugan became angry when she found out that ICE agents were waiting outside of her courtroom last week to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien involved in a domestic abuse case she was overseeing. She allegedly directed Flores-Ruiz to exit the courthouse through a private jury door to evade arrest.

FBI Director Kash Patel said Judge Dugan “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested at her courthouse.”

The shocking criminal complaint detailed Judge Dugan’s actions to intimidate federal agents and how she helped the illegal alien evade arrest.

Keep reading

Crazy: Rulings by Biden DOJ and Federal Judge Block Trump DHS From Deporting El Salvadoran Gang Member With Multiple Convictions–Including Murder: Report

How crazy is the United States immigration enforcement system? An El Salvadoran man alleged to be a member of the Surenos gang living in Los Angeles who was convicted of murder and other violent crimes is being protected from deportation by the Trump administration because of a December 2024 Biden Department of Justice ruling protecting the killer from being sent back to El Salvador over fears of torture, and a 2025 nationwide injunction by a federal judge delaying deputations to third party countries.

Fox News reporter Bill Melugin filed a stunning report after doing a ride-along with Homeland Security agents when they went to arrest Alexander Alfredo Palacios Guevara on a deportation order.

Guevara did not resist arrest. He shocked unaware agents and Melugin when he told them as he was being led into an ICE detention center, “I have CAT, I have CAT,” shorthand for DCAT, Deferral of Removal under the Convention Against Torture protection from deportation.

Guevara explained, “I just got CAT on December the 18th of last year by the BIA. You can call my lawyer.”

Asked by Melugin if he was a convicted murderer, Guevara responded, “I am free.”

ICE confirmed Guevara’s protected status and released him later that day, only to go pick him up the following day. He remains in custody as a threat to public safety while the Trump administration works on deporting him.

Keep reading

80 Percent Of Anti-Trump Lawsuits Are Filed In Courts Ruled By Democrat Appointees

As the Trump administration faces substantial pushback in the courts, including an unprecedented wave of nationwide injunctions halting its policies, some are claiming that his opponents are tilting the scales of justice by selectively bringing their lawsuits before sympathetic courts in a practice called “forum shopping.” They note that three-quarters of the lower court justices who have blocked Trump policies were appointed by Democrats.

Gaming the federal justice system, however, is harder than it sounds because plaintiffs bring cases before courts rather than judges. Most federal courts have a mix of judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans. The plaintiff’s goal in forum shopping is to launch their suit in a district where they are more likely to draw a sympathetic justice — ideally, this district would also include an appellate court stacked with like-minded judges.

To see whether Trump’s adversaries are engaging in forum shopping, RealClearInvestigations analyzed 350 cases brought against the administration. We found that plaintiffs have brought 80 percent of those cases before just 11 of the nation’s 91 district courts. While Democrat presidents have appointed roughly 60 percent of all active district court judges, each of the 11 district courts where the anti-Trump challenges have been clustered boasts an even higher percentage of Democrat appointees. In several of these venues, the administration’s challengers are almost guaranteed that a judge picked by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton will preside over their case.

The analysis of these 350 cases, which covers all those identified in popular litigation trackers and RCI’s independent research as of last week, lends credence to claims that anti-Trump litigants may be strategically filing suit in courts where they are most likely to receive a favorable ruling — a practice that has been both pursued and decried by Democrats and Republicans.

RCI also analyzed three dozen cases in which judges imposed the most extreme restraint on the Trump administration by entering a nationwide or universal injunction — prohibiting the administration from enforcing its policy not only against the party bringing the case, but anyone, everywhere. The analysis shows that these injunctions have disproportionately emerged from Democrat-leaning courts where plaintiffs have brought the lion’s share of suits, and that Democrat-appointed judges are overwhelmingly responsible for ordering them.

This is consistent with other analyses indicating that Democrat-appointed judges have handed down the bulk of all adverse rulings against the Trump administration.

Trump critics note that Republican-appointed judges have also ruled against the administration. They contend that the courts have halted Trump’s policies at an unprecedented scale because of his administration’s unprecedented overreach.

Nevertheless, evidence shows that the anti-Trump cases used to stymie policies in areas ranging from immigration to DEI and the administrative state have overwhelmingly come before courts that, on their face, would appear unfriendly. Plaintiffs have brought roughly 60 percent of all cases against Trump in three district courts with a disproportionate number of active judges appointed by Democratic presidents: the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

Plaintiffs filed 41 percent of all cases RCI identified — 143 in all — in the D.C. District Court, where Democratic presidents appointed 73 percent of active judges.

Keep reading

Obama Judge Holds Florida AG in Contempt For Cooperating with Trump Admin, Enforcing State’s Anti-Illegal Immigrant Laws

A federal judge held Florida’s Attorney General in contempt of court for enforcing the state’s anti-illegal immigration laws.

Last month Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier told a corrupt Obama judge that he will not order state authorities to halt enforcement of immigration law.

US District Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee, issued an injunction claiming Florida’s (state) law violates the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution in response to a lawsuit filed by the anti-American ACLU.

Uthmeier asked state law enforcement to continue to enforce immigration laws even though the judge issued an injunction barring them from doing their jobs.

Under the threat of contempt, AG Uthmeier refused to back down to the judge.

“That law does nothing more than exercise Florida’s inherent sovereign authority to protect its citizens by aiding the enforcement of federal immigration law,” Uthmeier wrote Wednesday, according to Fox News.

“I’m just not going to do that. We believe the court has overstepped and lacks jurisdiction there, and I will not tell law enforcement to stop fulfilling their constitutional duties.”

Judge Williams denied Uthmeier’s request to pause her injunction while he appealed it to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Earlier this month the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied similar request by Uthmeier.

On Tuesday, Judge Williams held Uthmeier in contempt of court and ordered him to file bi-weekly reports detailing whether any arrests, detentions or law enforcement actions have occurred.

Keep reading

Court Expands Block on Trump Admin Biological-Sex-Only Passport Rule

A judge has expanded a preliminary injunction on a move by President Donald Trump’s administration that would limit a person’s sex listed on their passport to align with their biological sex.

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Julia Kobick expanded the preliminary injunction on Tuesday after she ruled in favor of six plaintiffs who identified as transgender or nonbinary in April.

The plaintiffs were challenging a Trump administration rule change that restricted passport sex to align with birth sex, overturning a State Department policy that allowed people to choose the sex displayed on their passport, including an “X” option for individuals who identify as intersex and non-binary.

In that April ruling, only the six plaintiffs were allowed to receive passports aligning with their gender identity. Tuesday’s ruling issued by Kobick expands that order to grant class certification, pausing enforcement of the rule change nationwide.

The Trump administration is likely to appeal the decision. In the interim, Kobick’s order prevents the State Department from enforcing the administration’s revised rules.

The U.S. has permitted individuals who identify as transgender and intersex to choose a different sex for their passport than their birth sex since 1992, pending submission of medical documentation, until the rules were changed in 2021 under President Joe Biden. The Biden administration allowed people to self-select their passport sex marker based on gender identity, while non-binary, intersex, and other individuals were allowed to select an “X” marker rather than “M” or “F.”

Keep reading