Several immigration judges with backgrounds in immigrant defense have been terminated by the Department of Justice, often without explanation, during their probationary period. These firings have occurred in the midst of ongoing immigration court proceedings and often target judges at the end of their two-year trial period. The firings have prompted concerns, and an analysis shows that judges with prior experience defending immigrants have been disproportionately affected. The DOJ maintains it does not target judges based on experience, while the ongoing terminations and subsequent hiring practices suggest a shift towards judges with backgrounds in enforcement.
Read More
In an unprecedented move, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against all 15 federal district court judges in Maryland, challenging a court order that paused deportations under legal challenge for 48 hours. This action, described by legal experts as an attack on judicial independence, stems from the government’s argument to preserve President Trump’s authority over immigration. The lawsuit challenges a standing order issued by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, alleging it violates Supreme Court precedents. This marks a significant escalation from previous criticisms of judges, with legal analysts noting the direct challenge to the courts’ authority and the potential ramifications.
Read More
Trump’s private fury at Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stemming from his perception of her as “weak,” is reportedly reaching a fever pitch. His dissatisfaction isn’t a recent development; it appears to be a simmering resentment fueled by her rulings that don’t align with his expectations. This isn’t simply a disagreement over policy; it’s a deeper frustration with a judge he appointed, someone he likely envisioned as a loyal extension of his political agenda.
The situation highlights the inherent tension between a president’s desire to influence the judiciary and the independent role judges are meant to play. Barrett’s refusal to consistently bend to Trump’s will, even after receiving a lifetime appointment from him, is apparently interpreted as a betrayal.… Continue reading
Over 130 former state and federal judges filed an amicus brief supporting Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan’s motion to dismiss charges of impeding government agents. The brief argues that prosecuting Dugan for actions within her judicial discretion constitutes an assault on judicial independence and threatens the ability of judges to perform their duties without fear of retaliation. This prosecution, they contend, sets a dangerous precedent by prioritizing federal interests over state court proceedings and jeopardizes the balance of federalism. The judges’ brief emphasizes the importance of judicial immunity and the potential chilling effect on judicial decision-making.
Read More
A recently passed House bill contains a provision significantly limiting the courts’ ability to enforce injunctions and restraining orders unless a security bond is provided by the plaintiff. This effectively renders many existing injunctions unenforceable, impacting cases ranging from antitrust to school desegregation. Legal experts argue this serves to weaken judicial power and is likely a response to the Trump administration’s numerous legal defeats. The provision’s constitutionality is highly questionable, yet its passage marks a significant challenge to the independence of the judiciary.
Read More
Following oral arguments in a Supreme Court case challenging his executive order ending birthright citizenship, President Trump accused Democrats of “playing the ref,” alleging coordinated efforts to influence the justices. He warned the court against succumbing to these perceived games, claiming widespread public support. However, this assertion contradicts recent polling data showing low approval ratings for both Trump and his executive order. Trump’s rhetoric implied potential repercussions for justices ruling against his administration.
Read More
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell permanently blocked President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie, deeming it an unconstitutional attack on the American legal system’s foundational principles. The order, unprecedented in its targeting of a law firm for representing clients with opposing viewpoints, imposed punitive measures including suspension of security clearances and contract terminations. Judge Howell’s ruling highlights the order as an assault on the independence of the legal profession and the right to counsel. This decision follows temporary injunctions for other firms similarly targeted, with some reportedly reaching settlements with the president.
Read More
Judges nationwide are experiencing a surge in threats, both physical and professional, stemming from their judicial duties. These attacks, seemingly intended to intimidate, are not random occurrences. Justice Jackson highlighted the “elephant in the room”—the former president’s actions—as a contributing factor to this concerning trend. She emphasized that these are not isolated incidents but rather affect the entire judicial system’s ability to function effectively.
Read More
A lawsuit filed by the America First Legal Foundation, a group closely tied to President Trump, seeks to significantly expand executive branch power over the federal judiciary. Disguised as a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the suit argues that key judicial bodies should be considered executive branch agencies, thereby granting the President control over appointments and dismissals within the court system. Legal scholars widely dismiss the suit’s central claim as legally unsound, viewing it as a provocative attempt to undermine judicial independence. This action represents a further escalation of the Trump administration’s ongoing campaign to erode the judiciary’s authority.
Read More
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a strong condemnation of the Trump administration’s attacks on federal judges, characterizing them as threats to the rule of law and democratic norms. These attacks, ranging from threats of violence and professional retaliation to intimidation tactics like publicizing judges’ home addresses, are not isolated incidents but rather a systemic effort to undermine judicial independence. Jackson drew parallels to past challenges faced by judges during pivotal moments in American history, emphasizing the importance of resisting such pressures. Her speech, met with a standing ovation, served as the most forceful rebuke from the Supreme Court regarding these escalating attacks.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood