Donald Trump and his administration suffered two major legal setbacks as federal judges in California and Rhode Island ruled against key policies pursued by the White House.
In California, U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Thurston ordered the release of Salam Maklad, a Syrian national from the Druze religious minority, who had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers earlier this summer.
In Rhode Island, Senior District Judge William Smith blocked the administration from imposing new restrictions on domestic violence funding programs connected to the president’s recent executive order targeting what he described as “gender ideology.” Details of both rulings were shared by Politico’s legal affairs reporter, Kyle Cheney, on X.
With Republicans in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the judiciary has become a critical check on Trump’s agenda. Courts have previously halted efforts to penalize law firms representing cases against Trump, blocked attempts to revoke protections for Haitian migrants and struck down sanctions aimed at employees of the International Criminal Court. The California case centered on Maklad, who entered the United States in 2002 without valid documentation and applied for asylum. Court records show she later married a man who was granted asylum, which her legal team argued made her eligible for legal immigration status. ICE recently detained her after she attended what she believed was a routine “check-in” meeting and subsequently placed her in expedited removal proceedings and threatened her with deportation. Thurston emphasized Maklad’s clean record and lack of flight risk, writing that “the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in favor of Ms. Maklad.”
The judge ordered her release and barred authorities from rearresting her without “compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice — describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest — and detention, and a timely bond hearing.” Thurston further ruled that “Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from rearresting or re-detaining Ms. Maklad absent compliance with constitutional protections. … At any such hearing, the Government SHALL bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Maklad poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Ms. Maklad SHALL be allowed to have her counsel present.”
On the same day, Judge Smith ruled against the administration in a case tied to President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The directive, issued earlier this year, declared that sex is an “immutable biological classification as male or female” and instructed federal agencies to “prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce the rights and freedoms” tied to this definition.
Following the order, the Office on Violence Against Women revised its grant policy in May 2025 to prohibit funding for “inculcating or promoting gender ideology.” A coalition of 17 nonprofit groups challenged the restrictions, arguing they undermined their work with survivors of domestic violence. Judge Smith sided with the organizations, ruling that the new requirements “could result in the disruption” of critical services for victims of sexual and domestic violence. Together, the rulings marked another day of judicial pushback against the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape immigration enforcement and federal gender policy.
Tag Archives: Kyle Cheney
Newsweek: Donald Trump suffers major immigration legal blow
Afederal judge in Illinois has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration that sought to block the state’s workplace privacy law on the grounds that it conflicted with federal immigration enforcement.
In a ruling issued on August 19, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected the administration’s arguments, finding that the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act is not preempted by federal immigration law.
Why It Matters
The ruling matters because it draws a clearer boundary between federal immigration power and state authority over workplace regulation. By rejecting the Trump administration’s effort to use immigration law to override Illinois’ privacy protections, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman reaffirmed that states retain broad authority to govern employment relationships.
The decision safeguards workers’ procedural rights in the hiring process, could set a precedent for other states considering similar measures, and marks a significant check on the expansion of federal enforcement authority.
What To Know
The case centered on whether federal law—particularly the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)—supersedes state-level employment protections. The administration argued that provisions of Illinois’ law regulating the use of the federal E-Verify system and protecting employees during the employment verification process interfered with federal immigration authority.
Coleman disagreed, concluding that the state law “is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs.” She added that the government’s “broad interpretation of its power to regulate matters of immigration would swallow the historic powers of the states over employment-related issues”.
The Federal Government’s Argument
The Trump administration claimed that several provisions of Illinois’ privacy law—including penalties for violations related to E-Verify—constituted sanctions on employers of unauthorized workers and therefore fell under IRCA’s preemption clause. That provision bars states from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on employers who hire or recruit unauthorized workers/aliens.
The Justice Department also argued that Illinois’ law, by imposing notification requirements and other conditions on the use of E-Verify, conflicted with the federal goal of deterring unauthorized employment.
At oral argument, however, Coleman noted that government lawyers struggled to identify precisely which sections of Illinois law they believed were preempted. In her ruling, she wrote that the administration’s interpretation of IRCA’s preemption clause was “broad to the point of absurdity.”
Judge’s Reasoning
Coleman emphasized that employment regulation has historically been a power of the states. “States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State,” she wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent.
The judge found that Illinois’ law does not penalize employers for hiring unauthorized workers but rather regulates how employers use verification systems and ensures employees’ rights are respected during that process. “A person’s immigration or work authorization status is irrelevant to determine whether an employer has violated any of the provisions of the act,” Coleman explained.
She further rejected the administration’s conflict preemption argument, which claimed that Illinois’ law undermined federal objectives. The government suggested that the state’s notification rules could encourage unauthorized workers to evade detection. Coleman dismissed this as “simply too speculative a basis on which to rest a finding of pre-emption.”
Broader Implications
The ruling represents a significant legal setback for Trump’s immigration agenda, which has frequently sought to expand federal authority over state and local policies. By upholding Illinois’ privacy protections, the court reaffirmed the principle that federal power over immigration does not automatically override state employment laws.
The decision may carry consequences beyond Illinois. Other states have enacted or considered similar laws governing the use of E-Verify and employee privacy. Coleman’s opinion suggests that such measures, when designed to regulate employment rather than immigration status, may withstand federal challenges.
Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment via email outside of regular working hours on Wednesday.
What People Are Saying
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman wrote in her ruling that Illinois’ workplace privacy law “is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs.” She added that the administration’s interpretation of federal law was, “broad to the point of absurdity.”
Kyle Cheney of Politico wrote on X, August 20, 2025, “A federal judge in Illinois has thrown out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state that claims IL’s workforce privacy law conflicts with federal immigration enforcement.”
In a broader context, legal scholars and state officials have long debated the limits of federal power in immigration enforcement.
Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, told the Washington Post in 2017: “Trump and future presidents could use [the executive order] to seriously undermine constitutional federalism by forcing dissenting cities and states to obey presidential dictates, even without authorization from Congress. The circumvention of Congress makes the order a threat to separation of powers, as well.”
What Happens Next
The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Seventh Circuit, with a possible path to the Supreme Court. For now, Illinois’ workplace privacy law remains in effect, and the ruling could inspire other states to adopt similar protections while intensifying debates over federal versus state authority.
Judge Coleman emphasized that federal immigration power “is not without limits,” and that preemption requires a clear conflict. By leaving Illinois’ law intact and denying an injunction, the ruling marks a notable legal setback for Trump’s immigration strategy.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-immigration-legal-setback-illinois-workplace-privacy-2116468
Politico: DC sues over Trump administration’s attempted takeover of city police
Washington officials are suing the Trump administration over what they call a “baseless power grab” after the Department of Justice ordered a new “emergency” head of District police.
“By illegally declaring a takeover of MPD, the Administration is abusing its temporary, limited authority under the law,” Schwalb wrote in an X post Friday. “This is the gravest threat to Home Rule DC has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it.”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, warns that the attempted takeover could “wreak operational havoc” on the Metropolitan Police Department because of the confusion about who has operational control. The city’s lawyers say the push by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo#3”] Bondi violates the law in multiple ways — exceeding the president’s legal power to intervene in city affairs and rescinding policies adopted by local government.
They’re asking a federal judge to immediately rescind Bondi’s attempted takeover and effort to rewrite Washington police policies, declaring them to be unlawful. It’s unclear how quickly a judge will act, but the emergency nature of the filing could lead to proceedings as soon as Friday.
The suit is the biggest pushback from city officials since Trump invoked a provision of the Home Rule Act — the 1970s law that allows for limited self-governance by Washington’s government — that allows the president to direct the Metropolitan Police Department’s services to address “special conditions of an emergency nature.”
The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee known for her take-no-prisoners approach from the bench. Reyes, most notably, blocked Trump’s transgender military ban before her injunction was paused by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Amid the litigation, the Justice Department filed a complaint against Reyes for her pointed comments to government attorneys — though she at times also praised their advocacy and made similarly pointed comments to lawyers for the transgender service members.
In a declaration accompanying the city’s bid for an immediate restraining order, D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith said the administration’s gambit is “endangering the safety of the public and law enforcement officers.”
“In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive.”
The suit underscores that no president in history has invoked the authority to manage the city’s police department. And the city’s lawyers say the president’s power to do so requires cooperation between city officials and the federal government, not a hostile takeover.
Bondi on Thursday issued an order that directed Drug Enforcement Administration head Terry Cole to assume “all the powers and duties” of the city’s police chief as the new “Emergency Police Commissioner,” “effective immediately.”
[“Bimbo#3”] Bondi’s order also purported to rescind or suspend several Washington police orders — including one issued by Smith earlier on Thursday that allowed for limited cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser and Schwalb — both Democrats elected by Washington residents — insisted late Thursday that [“Bimbo#3”] Bondi could not legally disrupt the typical chain of command for MPD officers by requiring them to report to Cole.
“Therefore, members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,” Schwalb wrote in a letter Thursday to Smith that was circulated by Bowser. “Regardless of the [“Bimbo#3”] Bondi order, no official other than you may exercise all the powers and duties of the Chief of Police.”
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said Democrats’ attempts to “stifle” [“Bimbo#3”] Bondi’s orders are “par for the course” for the party.
“The Trump Administration has the lawful authority to assert control over the D.C. Police, which is necessary due to the emergency that has arisen in our Nation’s Capital as a result of failed leadership,” Jackson said in a statement.
A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment.
Trump on Monday issued an executive order invoking the Home Rule Act, insisting that the District was overrun by violence. He also deployed the National Guard to the city.
But before [“Bimbo#3”] Bondi’s order Thursday looking to replace the MPD chief, city officials have largely limited their criticism of the Trump administration, noting that Washington was in a fairly unique situation that gave the federal government broad powers and authorities.
“The feds have an outsize role in D.C., we all know that,” Bowser told POLITICO Wednesday morning. “Right now, having a surge of officers enhances our MPD forces on a temporary basis. We’re going to stay focused on hiring more MPD or, when this temporary surge is over, figuring out more permanent partnerships to tap into when we need a surge of officers.”
But Trump’s Monday press conference went far beyond what his executive order said, with the president saying his administration would “take our capital back.”
“Giving us additional resources is a good thing, but that’s also quite different than federalizing our police force,” D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson said Wednesday in an interview. “Donald Trump is not going to tell our police how to police.”
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced dueling legislation over Trump’s moves. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced a resolution Friday to grant Trump “the authority to maintain federal control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in Washington, D.C. for as long as necessary to restore law and order.”
Democratic lawmakers also introduced a joint resolution Friday to terminate the administration’s control of D.C. police by voiding Trump’s proclamation of a crime emergency in Washington. But without control of either chamber of Congress, the effort among Democrats is almost certainly futile.
“Trump has made clear that his efforts in D.C., where 700,000 taxpaying American citizens lack the protections of statehood, are part of a broader plan to militarize and federalize the streets of cities around America whose citizens voted against him,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) in his statement.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/15/dc-police-trump-lawsuit-00511086
Newsweek: Trump administration suffers double legal blow within hours
The Trump administration suffered two legal defeats within hours on Friday.
A judge in California ordered the release of a Syrian national it has been seeking to deport while a federal Rhode Island judge blocked the imposition of new conditions on domestic violence programs as part of the president’s campaign against “gender ideology.”
Details of both cases were shared on X by Kyle Cheney, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico.
Newsweek contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and press inquiry form respectively.
Why It Matters
With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress as well as the White House the courts have emerged as one of the main impediments to Trump administration policy.
The administration has suffered a number of prominent legal defeats including courts striking down punitive measures introduced by Trump against law firms involved in proceedings against him, blocking a bid to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protection and removing sanctions aimed at International Criminal Court employees.
Release of Salam Maklad
U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Thurston, of the Eastern District of California, on Friday instructed the release of Salam Maklad, a Syrian from the Druze religious minority who arrived in the United States in 2002 without valid entry documents and claimed asylum, according to court documents seen by Newsweek.
Maklad went on to marry a man who was granted asylum, which her legal team argued made her eligible for legal immigration status.
On July 9, Maklad was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers after arriving for what she believed was a routine “check-in” meeting and subsequently placed in “expedited removal proceedings” seeking to deport her from the U.S.
Thurston noted that Maklad had no criminal history and wasn’t considered a flight risk, and concluded that “the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in favor of Ms. Maklad.” Consequently she ordered her release from custody and said authorities are blocked from rearresting her “absent compliance with constitutional protections, which
include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing.”
Domestic Violence Funding
Friday also saw Senior District Judge William Smith of Rhode Island rule the Trump administration couldn’t impose fresh conditions on funds granted by the Violence Against Women Act due to the president’s Executive Order 14168 titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
This funding is distributed by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women.
Trump’s order stated that sex is a person’s “immutable biological classification as male or female,” and that the federal government should “prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce the rights and freedoms” associated with this position.
The Office on Violence Against Women updated its policy on what constitutes “out of scope activities,” and therefore should not be funded by its grants, after this order was issued in “approximately May 2025,” according to the court filing.
This added spending on “inculcating or promoting gender ideology as defined
in Executive Order 14168″ to the prohibited list.The case was brought by a coalition of 17 nonprofit groups which argued adhering to President Trump’s position on gender was impeding their ability to assist victims of domestic violence.
Judge Smith backed the coalition’s position concluding that the fresh requirements imposed by the Trump administration “could result in the disruption” of services for victims of domestic and sexual violence.
What People Are Saying
In the California case Judge Thurston ruled: “Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re[1]arresting or re-detaining Ms. Maklad absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing.
“At any such hearing, the Government SHALL bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Maklad poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Ms. Maklad SHALL be allowed to have her counsel present.”
In his ruling Judge Smith wrote: “On the one hand, if the Court does not grant preliminary relief, then the Coalitions will face real and immediate irreparable harm from the challenged conditions, conditions which the Court has already concluded likely violate the APA.
“This could result in the disruption of important and, in some cases, life[1]saving services to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. On the other hand, if the Court grants preliminary relief, then the Office will simply have to consider grant applications and award funding as it normally does.”
What’s Next
It remains to be seen whether the Trump’s administration will seek to appeal either of Friday’s rulings.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-suffers-double-legal-blow-within-hours-2111192
Raw Story: DOJ scrambling away from Stephen Miller’s comments on mass immigrant arrests: report
Department of Justice attorneys are attempting to put some distance between themselves and demands from Donald Trump’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller for ICE agents to come up with 3,000 immigrant arrests per day.
In May, Miller told Fox News personality Sean Hannity, “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are looking to set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests for ICE every day and President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher each and every day,”
According to a report from Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein, DOJ attorney Yaakov Roth was put on the spot over that number and told a judge the number came from “anonymous reports in the newspapers.”
The report notes that there is a growing “gulf” between what the White House wants and what DOJ can defend before skeptical judges who have serious questions about the sweeps that have all the appearances of racial profiling.
Politico is reporting, “The existence of the target has created particular complications in the case challenging the immigration sweeps in Los Angeles. The administration is fighting an order that a federal judge issued last month prohibiting ICE from conducting ‘roving’ immigration arrests based on broad criteria such as presence at a home improvement store or car wash.”
The report notes that, on Monday, Roth battled with judges but did concede, “… that such a quota, if it existed, could support claims that some arrests did not meet the legal standard.”
“In this instance, the chasm may be undermining the DOJ’s already strained credibility with judges,” Politico is reporting.
Politico: Hegseth won’t commit to obeying courts on Marines in Los Angeles
The Defense secretary said he’d comply with a Supreme Court order blocking Trump’s domestic deployment, but did not commit to the other courts.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday that he would obey a Supreme Court order to remove troops from Los Angeles but declined to show similar deference to other courts considering the issue.
The Pentagon chief initially deflected when asked at a House Armed Services Committee hearing whether he would abide by a court’s decision if it determined President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops and Marines was unlawful.
“What I can say is we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country,” Hegseth said.
But the Defense secretary later clarified that he would obey a decision from the high court.
“We’re not here to defy a Supreme Court ruling,” he said.
The comments mirror other officials who have criticized court rulings that go against the Trump administration, often directing withering criticism at lower-court judges while vowing deference to the justices.
The troops and their commanders might need a reminder that their oath is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the ego of a drunk O-3 wife-beater. Soldiers can be prosecuted for following illegal orders, i.e. being ordered to ignore a legitimate decision of a circuit or appellate court. Any arrests and charges by the troops under such circumstances should be null & void.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/12/hegseth-marines-los-angeles-00402794
Techdirt: Trump Administration Tells Supreme Court DOGE Can’t Be FOIAed
The destructive force that is DOGE still somehow manages to exist, despite it not being (depending on which claim is made and when) an official federal agency and/or overseen by anyone specifically identifiable as the head of DOGE.
Until recently, everyone — including Donald Trump — knew (and said as much in public) that DOGE was both a government agency and headed by Elon Musk. When the lawsuits started flying, the backtracking began by the administration, which apparently thought it could cover its tracks by walking backwards in its golf-cleated clown shows.
Trump’s love for DOGE has managed to undercut the protections DOGE hoped it would be able to avail itself of when the FOIA requests began pouring in and the discovery demands started hitting federal dockets.

Politico: Trump admin deportation flight to South Sudan violated court order, judge rules
It’s the latest rebuke in an escalating clash over Trump’s deportation agenda. Several judges have now accused the administration of defying the courts.
The Trump administration “unquestionably” violated a court order when it put seven men on a deportation flight bound for South Sudan, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, suggesting that administration officials may have committed criminal contempt.
The rebuke from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy is the latest episode in an intensifying clash between the administration and the judiciary over President Donald Trump’s campaign to carry out rapid deportations while evading court oversight.
Three federal judges have now castigated the administration for circumventing, or outright defying, court orders that have sought to block or reverse aspects of Trump’s deportation agenda. And several others — including a majority of the Supreme Court — have scolded the administration for attempting to violate immigrants’ due process rights.
…
The hasty deportations fell far short of the due process requirements in Murphy’s April ruling, the judge said Wednesday.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/21/trump-deportations-south-sudan-00362919
Raw Story: Judge hits Trump admin with sharply worded threat over ‘intentional refusal to comply’
The Trump Department of Justice faces a new legal deadline after a federal judge warned that its failure to comply with a court order could be treated as an “intentional refusal” to follow the law.
In a sharply worded one-page order, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said the Justice Department missed a key deadline to produce a privilege log tied to its claims of the state secrets privilege in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran national wrongfully deported to the country in March.
“Evidently missing from the defendants’ filing is the privilege log that this court ordered to be produced,” Xinis wrote in the document posted by Politico’s Kyle Cheney. The judge gave the government a Tuesday afternoon deadline to file the log and delivered a warning.
“Failure to file the privilege log or otherwise respond will be construed as an intentional refusal to comply with this court’s orders,” according to the order. The dispute bubbled up last week after the Trump administration invoked the state secrets privilege to shield details surrounding Abrego Garcia’s case, according to a report in Politico.
The judge set the next in-person hearing for Friday.
Politico: Judges have a warning about Trump’s rapid deportations: Americans could be next
A fundamental promise by America’s founders — that no one should be punished by the state without a fair hearing — is under threat, a growing chorus of federal judges say.
That concept of “due process under law,” borrowed from the Magna Carta and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, is most clearly imperiled for the immigrants President Donald Trump intends to summarily deport, they say, but U.S. citizens should be wary, too.
Across the country, judges appointed by presidents of both parties — including Trump himself — are escalating warnings about what they see as an erosion of due process caused by the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. What started with a focus on people Trump has deemed “terrorists” and “gang members” — despite their fierce denials — could easily expand to other groups, including Americans, these judges warn.
“When the courts say due process is important, we’re not unhinged, we’re not radicals,” U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Washington, D.C.-based appointee of President Joe Biden, said at a recent hearing. “We are literally trying to enforce a process embodied in probably the most significant document with respect to peoples’ rights against tyrannical government oppression. That’s what we’re doing here. Okay?”
It’s a fight that judges are increasingly casting as existential, rooted in the 5th Amendment’s guarantee that “no person shall … be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” The word “person,” courts have noted, makes no distinction between citizens or noncitizens. The Supreme Court has long held that this fundamental promise extends to immigrants in deportation proceedings. In a 1993 opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia called that principle “well-established.”