Immigration

Home Immigration

Judge Rebuked Twice By Supreme Court Deals New Blow To Trump Immigration Agenda

A federal judge already twice rebuked by the Supreme Court is back at it—this time blocking the Trump administration from ending legal protections for thousands of Ethiopian migrants.

Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, temporarily halted the administration’s plan to strip temporary protected status (TPS) from more than 5,000 Ethiopians—a move that would have made them deportable within 60 days.

Murphy said the Department of Homeland Security didn’t follow the law when it pulled the plug on the program.

That ruling lands right in the middle of the administration’s broader push to shrink TPS and tighten immigration enforcement.

But it also lands on a judge with a track record.

Murphy has repeatedly tried to block Trump-era deportation policies—especially efforts to send migrants to third countries. The Supreme Court has stepped in twice to reverse him, even issuing a rare 7–2 clarification saying he ignored its orders. An appeals court also shut down one of his more recent rulings just last month.

Critics say this is more of the same.

“This rogue judge lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to issue this order,” Sen. Eric Schmitt said. “The assault on the rule of law continues.”

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley piled on, warning that “this system cannot function with such rogue operators at the trial level.”

Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan pointed to what he sees as a fundamental problem: the law itself.

“One big problem for Murphy is the statute: It explains TPS determinations aren’t reviewable. Another is the Supreme Court, which has stopped similar orders twice,” Wessan said. “He finds neither statute nor SCOTUS stops him. I’m unconvinced.”

Murphy, for his part, insists he’s not defying the high court. He noted that the Supreme Court hasn’t fully explained its recent TPS-related rulings—and hasn’t stepped in on every similar case.

“There is no reason to assume” the justices have settled the issue, he wrote.

The lawsuit behind the ruling claims the administration’s TPS rollback isn’t just procedural—it’s discriminatory. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue the policy is aimed at reducing non-white immigration, writing that the effort targets “the nationals of majority Black countries” in particular.

The Justice Department is expected to appeal, setting up yet another round in a growing legal fight between the Trump administration and a judge who keeps standing in its way.

Florida Attorney General Held In Contempt After Defending Trump Immigration Agenda

3

A federal judge has found that Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier was in civil contempt of court over her ruling to pause a new state law making it a crime for people living in the U.S. illegally to enter the state.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ordered on April 29 that Uthmeier show cause on “why he should not be held in contempt or sanctioned” for violating a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the court, though Williams ultimately decided he was unable to convince her otherwise.

“If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it,” Uthmeier said Tuesday in a post on X.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation into law in February that made it a misdemeanor for illegal immigrants to enter the state as part of President Donald Trump’s push to crack down on illegal immigration.

But on April 4, Williams issued a 14-day TRO in response to the law, following a lawsuit filed by the Florida Immigrant Coalition and other groups. She then extended the TRO another 11 days after learning the Florida Highway Patrol had arrested over a dozen people, including a U.S. citizen.

The court said on April 18 that Florida law enforcement officers were bound by the TRO, preventing them from enforcing the criminal immigration law.

The court also ordered the attorney general to provide notice to all law enforcement officers, which Uthmeier initially complied with.

On April 23, he sent a follow-up letter telling the law enforcement community that “no judicial order…properly restrains you from” enforcing the immigration law, adding that “no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce” the statute.

As a result, the court required Uthmeier to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for violating the TRO.

Following his response, the court opined that litigants cannot change the meaning of words as it suits them, ruling that Uthmeier was in contempt of the court’s April 18 order to provide the TRO to law enforcement officers regarding the enforcement of the immigration law.

As such, the court ordered Uthmeier to file bi-weekly reports detailing arrests, detentions or law enforcement actions when it comes to the immigration law prohibiting undocumented immigrants from entering the state of Florida, with the first being filed by July 1.

Obama Appointee Blocks Trump Immigration Order

6

This is far from over…

A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration from revoking the legal status and work permits of the more than 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who flew into the United States during former President Joe Biden’s time in office. 

The migrants came to the U.S. under Biden’s controversial CHNV mass humanitarian parole program.

In her order, Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, wrote that each migrant needs to have an individualized, case-by-case review.

“The Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025), is hereby STAYED pending further court order insofar as it revokes, without case-by-case review, the previously granted parole and work authorization issued to noncitizens paroled into the UnitedStates pursuant to parole programs for noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (the “CHNV parole programs”) prior to the noncitizen’s originally stated parole end date,” she wrote. 

Biden created the CHNV program in 2023 via his executive parole authority. The program was launched in 2022 and initially first applied to Venezuelans before it was expanded to additional countries.

The Biden administration argued that CHNV would help reduce illegal crossings at the southern border and allow better vetting of people entering the country amid an influx of migrants. 

The program was temporarily paused due to widespread fraud.

Officials with the Department of Homeland Security and the Trump administration told Fox News that Talwani essentially ruled that Trump can’t use his own executive authority, the same authority Biden used, to revoke the parole that Biden granted. 

“It is pure lawless tyranny,” a Trump administration official told Fox News. 

In March, the roughly 532,000 migrants under the CHNV program were told to leave the U.S. 

Trump Threatens To Deport Elon Musk By Using DOGE

2
UK Government, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Billionaire Elon Musk is on thin ice…

Speaking with reporters ahead of a flight to Florida on Tuesday, the president was asked about whether he would consider deporting the South African mogul.

“We’ll have to take a look,” Trump said. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon! Wouldn’t that be terrible?”

Watch:

After a brief ceasefire between the president and his former DOGE lieutenant, the war of words has ratcheted up again over the past 24 hours — with Musk revving up his criticism of the Trump-backed “Big, Beautiful” budget bill. Musk, in a Monday post on X, denounced the legislation and floated the idea of forming a new political party. (RELATED: White House Responds After Elon Musk Calls Trump Megabill A ‘Disgusting Abomination’)

“It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!” Musk wrote. “Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people.”

Musk followed his post up with another, targeting the House Freedom Caucus, whose members mostly voted for the House version of the bill. “How can you call yourself the Freedom Caucus if you vote for a DEBT SLAVERY bill with the biggest debt ceiling increase in history?” Musk asked, tagging Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Andy Harris (R-MD).

“Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame! And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” Musk later added, making a clear threat to help primary challengers to incumbent Republicans.

Trump, in his Monday night response on Truth Social, threatened Musk’s government subsidies.

“Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. It is ridiculous, and was always a major part of my campaign. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one,” Trump wrote. “Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!”

Trump renewed that threat Tuesday morning outside the White House.

“He’s upset that he’s losing his E.V. Mandate, and he’s very upset about things,” Trump said. “But you know, he could lose a lot more than that, I can tell you right now. Hey, Elon can lose a lot more than that!”

Report: Trump Border Czar Homan, DHS Chief Noem Barely Speaking Or Meeting

3
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

A simmering feud between Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan has grown so strained that the two leaders reportedly barely speak or meet with each other, according to a new Axios report. Despite the tension, neither official is in danger of losing their job, and President Trump continues to stand by both as key figures in his aggressive border-security agenda.

The clash—with roots that appear more personal than ideological—has raised eyebrows inside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A White House adviser told Axios that Trump views the competition between Noem and Homan as a healthy dynamic that can improve overall performance. “Kristi’s doing a great job,” Trump reportedly said. “Her and Tom don’t get along, but they’re doing great.”

Personality Clash, Not Policy Collapse

Sources say the feud stems largely from a personality clash and differing leadership styles. While both leaders support tough enforcement of immigration laws, Noem’s backers have criticized Homan for oversaturating conservative media with frequent appearances, especially on Fox News, which they say sometimes carries him past official channels or consultation with DHS communications staff. Homan has appeared on conservative outlets far more than Noem this year, which insiders say has aggravated the divide.

Career Officials Bristle, But Trump Wants Results

Career immigration officials have reportedly bristled at Noem’s leadership style, including her public-facing promotion of policies like the CBP Home self-deportation app and the outsized influence of her senior adviser, Corey Lewandowski, who can only officially serve limited days under federal rules.

At the same time, Noem’s allies say Homan’s media presence sometimes strays into self-promotion, making news on policy pronouncements without coordination. But neither side is backing down, and several White House sources say Trump is satisfied with the job both are doing.

What This Means for Border Security

Despite internal friction, the Trump administration’s border enforcement efforts remain robust. Deportations have reached record levels under this team, and DHS continues to pursue hard-line priorities. That focus on illegal immigration enforcement aligns with what Trump was elected to deliver and remains popular among the president’s base.

In public remarks—such as Noem’s recent testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee—Noem has defended the administration’s approach as strengthening national security and deterring illegal entries, insisting DHS is enforcing the law without selective leniency.

Republican Warns Stephen Miller Will Cost GOP Midterms

1

Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia (R), a longtime supporter of former President Trump and co-founder of Latinas for Trump, is publicly criticizing the tone and tactics surrounding the administration’s latest immigration crackdown—warning that internal divisions and inflammatory rhetoric could cost Republicans in the midterms.

“I do think that he will lose the midterms because of Stephen Miller,” Garcia told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday, referring to Trump’s White House deputy chief of staff and one of the architects of the administration’s hard-line immigration strategy.

Garcia, who has consistently supported strong border enforcement and backed Trump’s efforts to regain control of the southern border, stressed that her concern is not with securing the border itself, but with how the policy is being communicated and executed. She placed particular blame on Miller for what she described as unnecessarily aggressive rhetoric that risks alienating persuadable voters—including Hispanic Republicans who favor border security but reject what they see as dehumanizing language.

The comments follow a volatile weekend in Minneapolis, where federal agents shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Pretti during a protest tied to the administration’s immigration actions. The incident came just weeks after another fatal shooting involving federal authorities in the same city, when ICE officers shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good earlier this month.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Pretti “attacked” federal law enforcement officers, while Miller went further, describing Pretti as “a would-be assassin” who “tried to murder federal law enforcement.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later sought to distance President Trump from Miller’s remarks, telling reporters Monday that she had not heard the president “characterize Mr. Pretti in that way” and emphasizing that the incident remains under investigation.

Garcia pushed back sharply on Miller’s framing in a post Monday on X.

“Distorting, politicizing, slandering – justifying what happened to Alex Pretti contradicts the American values the administration campaigned on. He was neither a domestic terrorist nor an assassin,” Garcia wrote.

“Allowing individuals like Stephen Miller, among others, who represent the government and make hard-line decisions, to make such comments will have long-term consequences. … This is not what I voted for!” she added.

Garcia’s criticism carries weight within Republican circles. She helped rally Latina voters for Trump during his 2016 campaign and later served in the Department of Homeland Security during his first term. While she has consistently supported deportations of criminal illegal immigrants and stronger border controls, she has previously warned against what she called “inhumane” tactics used to meet deportation quotas, arguing that they undermine public trust and conservative messaging on law and order.

Her remarks highlight a broader debate within the GOP as Republicans campaign on border security ahead of November’s high-stakes midterms. While voters continue to rank immigration and public safety among their top concerns, some party leaders are increasingly wary that overheated rhetoric—especially following deadly confrontations—could distract from Republicans’ core argument: restoring order at the border, enforcing the law, and keeping communities safe.

As fallout from the Minnesota shootings continues, political observers warn that how Republicans handle immigration enforcement—and how they talk about it—may prove just as important as the policies themselves in determining control of Congress this fall.

Federal Judge Faces Impeachment Threat Over Recent Deportation Fight

4
Image via Pixabay

Things are heating up…

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump called for the impeachment of a judge in a Truth Social post, referring to U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg who recently sought to block deportation flights to El Salvador.

“This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President – He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY,” Trump declared in the post.

“I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” the president added.

Over the weekend, Republican Rep. Brandon Gill (Texas) said he would be pushing to impeach the federal judge who ordered the Trump administration to halt deportations of Venezuelan gang members.

“I’ll be filing Articles of Impeachment against activist judge James Boasberg this week,” Gill wrote in a post on X.

On Saturday, President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The order was intended to target members of the Tren de Aragua gang, who Trump said could be arrested, restrained and removed from the country. The moment marked only the third time the wartime act has been used and the first time since World War II.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg had earlier ordered a temporary block on the deportation of five of the group’s members, which prompted Trump to issue the proclamation.

The editorial board of The New York Post also hammered billionaire Elon Musk for calling to impeach Judge Boasberg, calling the move “way out of line.”

“Elon Musk is way out of his lane in cheering a bid to impeach federal Judge James Boasberg, who’s put a temporary hold on deportation flights of illegal migrant gangbangers,” the editorial board wrote in their Sunday piece, which was highlighted by Mediaite.

“We like the idea of the flights: The brutes of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 have had it too easy for far too long, and current efforts to get tough are a necessary correction to Biden-era denial,” they added

“The case seems destined to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Can the feds simply declare anyone a TdA member before putting them on a plane off to an El Salvadoran prison?” the Post editorial board questioned in their piece.

“Which makes it just plain silly for Musk to tweet ‘necessary’ of a Texas rep’s plan to file to impeach the judge: It’s nothing of the kind, and cheering it only makes Musk look reckless — a reputation he doesn’t need when many DOGE actions also face court challenge,” they added.

Report: Impeachment Articles Officially Hit Federal Judge

7
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54325633746/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159707159

On Tuesday, A house Republican filed articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who recently ordered the Trump administration to stop deportation flights being conducted under the Alien Enemies Act.

“For the past several weeks, we’ve seen several rogue activist judges try to impede the president from exercising, not only the mandate voters gave him, but his democratic and constitutional authority to keep the American people safe,” Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. “This is another example of a rogue judge overstepping his…authority.”

Gill’s resolution, first obtained by Fox News Digital, accused U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg of abusing his power in levying an emergency pause on the Trump administration’s plans to deport illegal immigrants under a wartime authority first issued in 1798, which President Donald Trump recently invoked to get members of the criminal Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua out of the U.S.

“Chief Judge Boasberg required President Trump to turn around planes midair that had aliens associated with Tren De Aragua, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization,” the resolution said. “This conduct jeopardizes the safety of the nation, represents an abuse of judicial power, and is detrimental to the orderly functioning of the judiciary. Using the powers of his office, Chief Judge Boasberg has attempted to seize power from the Executive Branch and interfere with the will of the American people.”

In a brief interview with Fox News Digital shortly before filing his resolution, Gill suggested he wanted the matter to go through the House in traditional form – which would first put the resolution in front of the House Judiciary Committee, where Gill is a member.

“I’ll be talking to [Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio] about it,” Gill said. “I think the best way to do this…is to go through the judiciary committee, which is where impeachment of judges runs through. I think the more we can stick with that plan, the better.”

Read:

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

Trump Border Czar Defends Hefty Immigration Plan Pricetag

6
Trump at the border wall via Wikimedia Commons

Incoming Trump administration border czar Tom Homan told NewsNation’s Ali Bradley there is no “price tag” for the mass deportations planned by the incoming administration

“What price do you put on national security? I don’t think it has a price tag,” Homan said. “What price do you put on the thousands of American moms and dads who buried their children? You want to talk about family separation; they buried their children because their children were murdered by illegal aliens that weren’t supposed to be here. I don’t put a price on that. I don’t put a price on national security. I don’t put a price on American lives.”

Homan further defended the mass deportations’ $86 billion price tag, saying it would save American taxpayers money in the future.

“This operation would be expensive,” he acknowledged. “However, it’s going to save taxpayers a lot of money in the long run. Right now, we’re spending billions of dollars on free airline tickets, free hotel rooms, free medical care, free meals, the education system.”

Homan, however, said they will also need help from Congress.

“We need more resources; we need funding. We obviously need to buy more detention beds because everybody we arrest, we have to detain to work on those removal efforts and get travel documents, get flight arrangements. So we need more detention beds,” said Homan.

Homan said the Trump administration doesn’t plan on separating families but rather deporting them together. He said the administration is looking into using halfway houses to hold U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.

“As far as U.S. children, that’s going to be a difficult situation because we’re not going to change your U.S. citizenship,” he said. “Which means they’re going to be put in a halfway house or they can stay at home and wait for the officers to get the travel arrangements and come back and get the family. You know the best thing to do for a family is to self-deport themselves.”

Trump Administration Suffers Major Court Defeat In Sanctuary Cities Fight

0

The Trump administration suffered a significant legal setback on Wednesday after a federal judge dismissed the Department of Justice’s lawsuit challenging “sanctuary” immigration policies in four New Jersey cities, ruling the federal government lacks standing to bring the case.

U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin threw out the DOJ’s lawsuit against Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken, concluding that even if the administration prevailed, New Jersey’s statewide immigration restrictions would remain in effect, meaning the court could not provide the relief the federal government was seeking. The case was dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the DOJ could refile if it establishes standing.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in May 2025, arguing that the four cities’ policies unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement and violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

The complaint described the municipal policies as “a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws and the federal authorities that administer them,” arguing they prevent willing local law enforcement agencies from assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

According to Politico, Padin said the administration’s argument ignored a critical legal reality.

“The Federal Government’s case has a fundamental flaw—it treats the Challenged Policies as though they operate in isolation. They do not,” Padin wrote.

The judge noted that New Jersey’s statewide Immigrant Trust Directive independently limits how state and local law enforcement cooperate with federal civil immigration authorities. Because that directive would remain in force regardless of what happened to the four cities’ individual policies, striking down the local ordinances would not remedy the federal government’s alleged injury.

The Immigrant Trust Directive, originally issued in 2018 under then-Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration, was codified into state law earlier this year by Gov. Mikie Sherrill. It sharply limits voluntary cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities except where required by law. The directive has already survived multiple legal challenges, including lawsuits brought by Republican-led counties that were rejected by both the U.S. District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The DOJ argued that portions of Newark’s, Jersey City’s, and Hoboken’s local policies went further than the statewide directive and therefore could be challenged independently. Padin disagreed, finding those differences either too minor or too speculative to justify continuing the case.

The ruling marks the latest courtroom setback for the Trump administration’s aggressive campaign against sanctuary jurisdictions. Earlier this week, another federal judge dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit challenging Los Angeles’ sanctuary city ordinance, dealing another blow to the administration’s effort to compel greater local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Neither President Donald Trump nor the White House has publicly commented on the ruling.