More than 220 judges rejecting the Trump administration’s mass detention policy is a significant number, and it speaks volumes about the extent to which the policy was deemed problematic. It highlights the widespread concern among the judiciary that the policy was likely an overreach, or perhaps simply unjust. When so many judges, from different jurisdictions and likely with varying political leanings, come to the same conclusion, it’s hard to dismiss it as a fringe opinion or an outlier case. The implication is clear: the administration’s approach to immigration detention, and potentially its broader immigration policies, was seen as excessively harsh, possibly illegal, and certainly not in line with established legal norms.… Continue reading
A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to end the deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., citing the president’s illegal intrusion on local law enforcement authority. The court found that while the president can protect federal assets, he cannot unilaterally deploy the D.C. National Guard for crime control. The judge has put the order on hold for 21 days to allow for an appeal. This decision follows a lawsuit from D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb and other court challenges regarding similar deployments in other cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland, Oregon.
Read More
In a recent development, Judge Mark Wolf, a Reagan appointee, resigned to publicly criticize the Trump administration’s actions, citing an “assault on the rule of law.” Wolf accused Trump of using the law for partisan purposes, targeting political adversaries while protecting allies. This resignation follows rising tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration, with other Reagan-appointed judges also voicing similar concerns. Wolf’s primary concerns include Trump’s dismantling of agencies investigating corruption and the increase in threats against judges.
Read More
Judges don’t trust the DOJ anymore. It’s a stark reality, isn’t it? The bedrock of our justice system, the presumption of good faith in the actions of the Department of Justice, is crumbling. It feels like we’re watching the slow, painful dismantling of a system designed to be impartial, replaced by one that seems increasingly susceptible to political manipulation. This isn’t a new phenomenon, but the intensity and brazenness with which it’s happening now are alarming. We’re seeing a growing bipartisan concern about this very issue.
The erosion of trust is multifaceted. It begins with the simple act of a DOJ lawyer misrepresenting facts in court, or presenting fabricated “evidence”.… Continue reading
Following a controversial ruling, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by President Trump, faced scrutiny after granting a temporary restraining order against the deployment of National Guard troops in Oregon. During an emergency hearing, Judge Immergut questioned the federal government’s actions, accusing them of circumventing her order by mobilizing troops from Texas after initially moving them from California. This prompted criticism from White House officials, who argued the President’s authority as commander-in-chief superseded the judge’s ruling, claiming the deployment was necessary to defend federal officers and maintain order. Legal analysts suggest the situation highlights the ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch.
Read More
South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein’s home was set ablaze, prompting an investigation by state law enforcement. The fire occurred after Goodstein had reportedly received death threats, and resulted in serious injuries to her family members. The incident has raised concerns about political violence, particularly given that the judge had previously blocked the state’s election commission from releasing voter files to the Department of Justice, a decision that was later reversed. This event, along with other incidents of violence and threats against judges, underscores a broader pattern of attacks and increased criticism of the judiciary from political figures, including the Trump administration.
Read More
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller condemned a recent ruling that halted President Trump’s deployment of National Guard soldiers to Portland, Oregon. Miller asserted the President’s authority as commander-in-chief, claiming local law enforcement failed to protect ICE officers from “terrorist assault.” U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, ruled against the deployment, stating the President’s decision was “untethered to the facts,” and issued a temporary restraining order. The case is set to continue with a trial date scheduled for October 29th, as the President has deployed soldiers to other Democrat-led cities in recent months.
Read More
A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against all 15 federal judges in Maryland, ruling the Justice Department lacked the legal standing to limit court power in immigration cases. Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee, criticized the administration for its efforts to smear the justice system and its unprecedented challenge to the judiciary. The lawsuit stemmed from a Maryland court rule that temporarily blocked the removal of immigration detainees who challenged their deportation, a practice the Justice Department deemed unlawful. The government has appealed Cullen’s ruling, which asserted that the executive branch couldn’t sue judges over judicial actions, to the 4th US Circuit of Appeals.
Read More
Chief Justice Roberts warned Georgetown law students that the rule of law is under threat, citing recent attacks against Supreme Court justices as exceeding acceptable criticism. He emphasized the rarity of the rule of law globally and historically, while acknowledging that criticism of court decisions is beneficial, provided it remains focused on legal arguments rather than personal attacks. Roberts’ comments followed attacks on justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, by President Trump and his allies, who have disregarded court rulings and even called for impeachment of judges. This behavior prompted a rare statement from Roberts defending the judiciary’s independence.
Read More
As the news of the judge who dismissed Trump’s criminal case being touted as a ‘future supreme court justice’ by Matt Gaetz makes its rounds, it is both alarming and disheartening to see the depth of corruption and lack of integrity that pervade our political landscape. The implications of such a statement hint at a dangerous quid pro quo scenario where legal decisions are made not on the basis of justice and law, but on personal gain and partisan politics.
The insinuation that a judge could potentially be rewarded with a Supreme Court seat for favoring a particular individual is deeply troubling.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker