Tag: judges

Trump Administration Must Give Some Venezuelans 21 Days Notice Before Deportations: Judge

The Trump administration must provide Venezuelans whom officials arrest for alleged links to the Tren de Aragua gang three weeks’ notice before removing them from the country, a federal judge ruled on April 22.

A temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney applies to all noncitizens in Colorado who were, are, or will be subject to President Donald Trump’s March proclamation declaring an invasion of the United States by the gang and directing the deportation of its members.

Government officials must under the order provide 21 days’ notice to the noncitizens advising them that the government intends to deport them, that they can hire an attorney, and that they have a right to seek judicial review.

The notice “must be written in a language the individual understands,” Sweeney wrote.

The judge also required the government not to remove any of the affected noncitizens from Colorado, until at least May 6. The restraining order may be extended by then, or turned into a preliminary injunction—a longer-term form of relief.

Sweeney sided with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing two Venezuelan nationals who were apprehended under Trump’s proclamation and said they feared being deported.

Keep reading

DC Courts Are Such A Mess Because Leftist Judges, Not POTUS, Pick Their Colleagues

Should sitting judges — especially the controversial James Boasberg and Tanya Chutkan — be able to tell the president what other judges he can appoint? Of course not. But under the current system for selecting D.C.’s local judges, that’s exactly what happens.

It’s bad enough that those challenging Trump administration policies have sought to bring their cases before D.C. federal judges like those mentioned above, who they believe will be inclined to rule against the administration — especially on hot button issues like abortion, immigration, government spending, and trans-identifying individuals in the military, just to name a few. But what’s worse is that those same judges have been empowered to help select other judges who are likely to have the same radically different (and sometimes dangerous) view of their judicial role — regardless of the wishes of the sitting president.

Here’s the backstory: For most of our nation’s history, the president appointed District of Columbia judges via the familiar system outlined in the Constitution. When a vacancy occurred, the president would nominate a replacement and appoint that person once confirmed by the Senate.

But starting in 1973 (and slightly before), with the advent of D.C.’s “Home Rule,” Congress radically altered not only the structure and jurisdiction of the district’s courts but also the method by which their judges were selected. Congress ostensibly enacted these “reforms” to give local leaders a greater say in who sat on D.C.’s newly created courts and to make the process “nonpartisan” and “apolitical.”

But we know that selecting judges is an inherently political exercise. And in practice, any impartial observer would have to admit that the current system has loaded the dice to make it impossible for any constitutionally conservative judge to make it onto the bench.

Keep reading

Trump slams Supreme Court over deportations, says it is ‘not possible’ to try every illegal migrant

President Donald Trump on Monday slammed the United States’ court system, including the Supreme Court, over their response to his efforts to deport illegal migrants, stating it is “not possible” to try every person who is in the U.S. illegally.

The Supreme Court over the weekend temporarily blocked Trump’s latest round of deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Trump’s deportations have come under scrutiny after he removed hundreds of illegal migrants he accused of being gang members without due process. 

The president defended his actions in a post on Truth Social, claiming it would take “200 years” to try every illegal migrant, and slammed the Supreme Court for allegedly not wanting him to “send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela.” 

“I’m doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our Country, but the Courts don’t seem to want me to do that,” Trump wrote in the post. “My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court, which I have such great respect for, but which seemingly doesn’t want me to send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela, or any other Country.”

The president praised Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent, stating the justice was right for wanting to “dissolve the pause on deportations.”

Keep reading

The Courts Are The Scofflaws Behind Our Current Constitutional Crisis

“Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.” 

Those thirteen words, penned by Justice Samuel Alito on Holy Saturday, represent the first admission by the judiciary that courts too can wrongly flout the law. 

Justice Alito’s stark acknowledgement concluded his bullet-point evisceration of the Supreme Court’s “unprecedented” command that President Trump not remove a “putative class of detainees” under the Alien Enemies Act. The Supreme Court had entered that order shortly after midnight after the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) filed an emergency application asking alternatively for an emergency injunction, an immediate administrative injunction, a writ of mandamus, or a stay of removal, to prevent the Trump Administration from removing Venezuelans to El Salvador pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act.

The ACLU’s scattershot request for relief from the Supreme Court came a mere two days after they sued the Trump Administration in a federal court in Texas — and before that court or the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had an opportunity to rule on the request for an injunction barring the removal of any more aliens to El Salvador. 

The ACLU filed the habeas corpus complaint on Wednesday in the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of two plaintiffs, identified merely as A.A.R.P. and W.M.M., but the ACLU also sought certification of a class defined as “[a]ll noncitizens in custody in the Northern District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled ‘Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua’ and/or its implementation.”

Simultaneously, the ACLU filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the Trump Administration from removing any aliens under the presidential proclamation Trump signed on March 14, 2024. That proclamation provided that “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”

Keep reading

Judges are now controlling the military: Congress can stop it

Former Majority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer recently admitted that he is responsible for confirming 235 “progressive” judges who are “ruling against Trump time after time.”  Activist judges are Schumer’s Plan B.

Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to make policy for the military. But as things stand now, unelected, unaccountable federal judges are overruling President Trump’s Executive Orders and arrogating to themselves power to run the armed forces.

Unless the 119th Congress intervenes, President Joe Biden’s radical policies regarding transgender people in the military will continue indefinitely.

Self-Appointed “Supreme Judicial Commanders” Take Charge

President Donald Trump’s January 27 Executive Order #14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” is one of several calling for an undistracted focus on military warrior ethos, not “political agendas or other ideologies harmful to unit cohesion.”

Executive #14168 (January 20) defined biological reality – differentiating “sex” from subjective “gender identity” and proclaiming the existence of two immutable sexes, male and female. This EO also prohibited male access to women’s sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities and discontinued use of inaccurate invented pronouns and bureaucratic markers that reflect subjective gender identity instead of biological sex.

The reality-based principles stated above, applied to DoD policies regarding persons having a history of gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender, logically justified orders to revoke President Joe Biden’s Executive Orders and Directives accommodating persons with gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender in the military.

Trump’s EOs and directives restored gender dysphoria to the DoD list of physical and psychological conditions that affect eligibility to serve, and ended Biden-era mandates and subsidies for irreversible treatments and surgeries for “transitioning” purposes that attempt to change sex.

Trump’s Executive Orders also mandated respectful treatment for persons separating with generous benefits due to gender dysphoria, and protected vulnerable children from chemical and surgical mutilation based on “junk science” recommended by discredited “experts” like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Keep reading

New Mexico Judge Abruptly Resigns After Suspected Tren de Aragua Gangbanger Arrested for Firearm Possession at His Home

A Doña Ana County magistrate judge has abruptly stepped down after an alleged Tren de Aragua gang affiliate who is in the U.S. illegally was reportedly arrested at his home and charged with possession of a firearm or ammunition.

Judge Jose “Joel” Cano reportedly submitted a letter of resignation on Mar. 3 of this year.

Judge Cano, a former police officer who took the bench in 2011, told a Border Hawk source that he did indeed resign but did not comment further.

Border Hawk contacted the judge’s office on Apr. 1 and was told by a clerk that he had “retired.”

On Feb. 28, 2025, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) El Paso arrested Cristhian Ortega-Lopez at a Las Cruces residence owned by Judge Cano following an anonymous tip.

Ortega-Lopez was reportedly caught by U.S. Border Patrol on Dec. 15, 2023, at Eagle Pass, TX, after illegally entering the U.S. by scaling a barbed wire fence, but was released three days later due to overcrowding at holding facilities.

Ortega-Lopez is a Venezuelan national and authorities believe he has ties to Tren de Aragua, based on tattoos, apparel, and displaying of hand gestures.

Keep reading

Pizzas Sent to Judges’ Homes in Name of Judge’s Murdered Son

Hundreds of pizzas have been delivered to the homes of judges and their adult children amid increasing threats to the judiciary, including some sent in the name of a New Jersey federal judge’s murdered son.

Judge Esther Salas of the District of New Jersey described the incidents during an online event on Tuesday aimed at addressing the worsening threat landscape for federal judges, who have been subject to impeachment efforts and viral threats after ruling against President Donald Trump’s actions.

Salas has spearheaded national efforts to improve security for judges since her son, Daniel Anderl, was murdered in 2020 at their home by an attorney who posed as a delivery man.

“Now Daniel’s name is being weaponized to bring fear to judges and their children,” she said during the event. “You’re saying to those judges, you want to end up like Judge Salas? You want to end up like Judge Salas’ son? These are alarming developments.”

Salas said in an interview that at least 10 pizzas have been sent to federal judges and their relatives, with her son’s name listed as the sender. These deliveries have been made across the US , including in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Los Angeles, she said.

Many of the judges who have received pizzas and other food deliveries were handling legal challenges to Trump administration actions, Salas said. However, at least one of the judges who recently received pizzas in her son’s name wasn’t, indicating the threats are part of a broader attack against the judiciary, Salas said.

Keep reading

Jeb Boasberg’s “Criminal Contempt” Finding Makes Mockery of Separation of Powers

Jeb Boasberg, the chief judge of the D.C. District Court, sure has a knack for timing.

As the national conversation this week revolves around accusations the Trump administration is defying court orders by refusing to return an illegal El Salvadoran, er “Maryland father,” back to the U.S., Boasberg swooped in Wednesday afternoon with a lengthy opinion accusing the administration of “criminal contempt” for ignoring a set of orders he issued on March 15. (I first wrote about Boasberg’s contempt trap on March 19.)

In a series of hasty decisions that day, Boasberg, in another instance of fortuitous timing for foes of the Trump administration as I explained here, halted the deportation of illegal Venezuelans covered by the president’s Alien Enemies Act (AEA) proclamation, which Trump had been signed the night before. Boasberg issued two written temporary restraining orders—one prohibiting the deportation of five unnamed illegal Venezuelans represented in the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and another one turning the five plaintiffs into a class action suit protecting anyone in custody subject to the AEA.

And during an emergency hearing held that Saturday evening, Boasberg also issued what he describes as an “oral command” at around 6:45 p.m. to return planes carrying the newly-designated class of illegals. “[Any] plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States,” Boasberg told the Department of Justice attorney present at the hearing. “However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.”

The problem, as Boasberg appears to have known at that time, is that two planes carrying the AEA subjects had already departed and were out of U.S. territory. His “oral command” was impossible to obey or to enforce. (Complicating matters further is Boasberg did not include the “oral command” in his written order published about 40 minutes later.)

The alleged defiance of the two written orders—which were both vacated on April 7 by the Supreme Court after a majority concluded Boasberg’s courtroom was the wrong jurisdiction and the ACLU sought the wrong type of relief—and his “oral command” represent the basis of Boasberg’s contempt allegations. And Boasberg appears prepared to name a court-appointed attorney if the Trump DOJ refuses to bring charges against the yet-unidentified officials he accuses of contempt.

Keep reading

Judge Rules School Can Ban ‘XX’ Protests Over Males in Girls’ Sports

The Bow School District was acting within its authority to kick two soccer dads out of a girls game for wearing pink “XX” wristbands as a silent protest against biological males playing on girls’ teams, a federal judge ruled Monday.

But one of the dads, Anthony Foote, told NHJournal he plans to keep fighting for what he sees as the rights of women and girls.

“What was our offense? Supporting girls’ sports and defending biological reality?” Foote said. “This ruling is a slap in the face to every parent who believes schools should be a place of fairness, not political indoctrination. The judge openly admitted that Pride flags are allowed because they promote ‘inclusion,’ but wristbands defending women’s sports are banned because they might ‘offend’ someone. That’s viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple — and it’s unconstitutional.”

United States District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe ruled against Foote, Kyle Fellers, Eldon Rash, and Nicole Foote in a 45-page order denying their preliminary injunction against SAU 67. The parents are being represented by the Institute for Free Speech, a legal nonprofit that promotes parents’ rights. Del Kolde, the senior attorney, said he is still considering his next steps in this case.

“We strongly disagree with the Court’s opinion issued today denying our request for a preliminary injunction. This was adult speech in a limited public forum, which enjoys greater First Amendment protection than student speech in the classroom. Bow School District officials were obviously discriminating based on viewpoint because they perceived the XX wristbands to be ‘trans-exclusionary.’ We are still evaluating our options for next steps,” Kolde said.

The crux of McAuliffe’s ruling is that while Fellers, Foote, and the others acted within their First Amendment rights to protest, venues like school athletic events are considered “limited public forums” and school officials acted within their legal authority to restrict what the parents said and did.

“The question then becomes whether the School District can manage its athletic events and its athletic fields and facilities — that is, its limited public forum — in a manner that protects its students from adult speech that can reasonably be seen to target a specific student participating in the event (as well as other similar gender-identifying students) by invited adult spectators, when that speech demeans, harasses, intimidates, and bullies. The answer is straightforward: Of course it can. Indeed, school authorities are obligated to do so,” McAuliffe wrote.

Keep reading

Trump’s Department of Justice Tells Judge They’re No Longer Amused Playing Her Silly Games

The Department of Justice’s response to a request by the attorneys representing El Salvadoran national Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia for a “show cause” holding the government in contempt didn’t go exactly according to the script the plaintiffs had in mind. It served notice on Obama-appointed federal judge Paula Xinis that she was mistaken if she thought the Department of Justice or the White House were shaking in their boots. It is the philosophical follow-up to the last response the DOJ sent to the judge; see Trump Admin Respectfully Tells Judge Xinis to Pound Sand in Abrego Garcia Case – RedState.

This case started when Abrego Garcia was picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in suburban Maryland and given a free plane trip to an anti-terrorism prison in El Salvador. What would have been an unremarkable deportation of an illegal immigrant with alleged gang ties and an active removal order became more complicated when it was discovered that the removal order said he couldn’t be removed to El Salvador because the bad blood between his gang, MS-13, and another gang might make him a target. Since then, the administration has been locked in a battle of will with a federal judge who seems hellbent on bringing an illegal immigrant back to the US so she can demonstrate her power.

The government summarizes the demands made by the plaintiffs this way: “In response, Plaintiffs moved for three categories of relief: (1) an order superintending and micromanaging Defendants’ foreign relations with the independent, sovereign nation of El Salvador, (2) an order allowing expedited discovery and converting Tuesday’s hearing into an evidentiary hearing, and (3) an order to show cause for why Defendants should not be held in contempt. 

Keep reading