Knewz: Trump admin faces double legal blow in just hours

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.

https://knewz.com/trump-admin-double-legal-blow-hours

Kansas City Star: Trump Suffers Double Legal Blow

District Judge Jennifer Thurston has ordered the release of Syrian asylum seeker Salam Maklad and barred her rearrest without constitutional safeguards. Advocates have raised concerns that contested grant rules are disrupting essential services, while officials have noted that the cases have tested federal authority.

In addition to Thurston’s decision, U.S. District Judge William Smith has blocked new Justice Department grant conditions related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and transgender rights. Both rulings represent legal blows to the Trump administration, as they directly challenge and overturn key policy actions.

Both rulings, issued this month, limit the administration’s ability to enforce its immigration and social policy priorities. Critics say this highlights judicial checks on executive authority despite Republican control in Congress and the White House.

Thurston wrote, “Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-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.”

Thurston added, “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.”

Thurston ordered Maklad’s release after an ICE check-in triggered her detention, noting she has no criminal history and is not a flight risk. She barred ICE from rearresting Maklad without notice of changed circumstances and a timely bond hearing.

Smith granted preliminary relief to 17 nonprofits challenging updated Office on Violence Against Women grant terms. He found the conditions likely arbitrary under federal law.

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.”

Smith added, “This could result in the disruption of important and, in some cases, life 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.”

Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman said, “The Justice Department should be exploring what they can be doing to keep people and communities safe, not threatening funding for local and community organizations with proven results.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-suffers-double-legal-blow/ss-AA1KGtBW

San Francisco Chronicle: Trump asks SCOTUS to allow profiling in California ICE raids


Any attorney who files or argues in favor of this appeal should be disbarred!

Any justice who votes in favor of this appeal should impeached and removed!


The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow officers to arrest suspected undocumented immigrants in Southern California because of how they look, what language they’re speaking and what kind of work they’re doing, factors that federal judges have found to be baseless and discriminatory.

Last month’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California,” D. John Sauer, the Justice Department’s solicitor general, said Thursday in a filing with the Supreme Court. “This Court should end this attempted judicial usurpation of immigration-enforcement functions” and suspend the injunction while the case is argued in the lower courts, Sauer wrote.

The Central District, which includes Los Angeles County and six other counties, has nearly 20 million residents, more than any other federal court district in the nation. It became the focus of legal disputes over immigration enforcement after President Donald Trump took control of the California National Guard in June and sent thousands of its troops to the streets in Los Angeles to defend immigration agents against protesters of workplace raids.

A 9th Circuit panel upheld Trump’s commandeering of the National Guard, rejecting a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom. But Frimpong, an appointee of President Joe Biden, ruled July 11 that immigration officers were overstepping legal boundaries in making the arrests, and issued a temporary restraining order against their practices.

In a ruling Aug. 1 upholding the judge’s decision, another 9th Circuit panel said federal officers had been seizing people from the streets and workplaces based on four factors: their apparent race or ethnicity, the language they spoke or accent in their voice, their presence in a location such as a car wash or an agricultural site, and the type of work they were doing.

That would justify the arrest of anyone “who appears Hispanic, speaks Spanish or English with an accent, wears work clothes, and stands near a carwash, in front of a Home Depot, or at a bus stop,” the panel’s three judges said. They agreed with Frimpong that officers could not rely on any or all of those factors as the basis for an arrest.

But the Trump administration’s lawyers said those factors were valid reasons for immigration arrests in the Central District.

In April, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston issued a similar order against the Border Patrol, prohibiting immigration arrests in the Eastern District of California unless officers have a reasonable suspicion that a person is breaking the law. The district is based in Sacramento and extends from Fresno to the Oregon border.

“You can’t just walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers,’” Thurston, a Biden appointee, said at a court hearing, CalMatters reported. The Trump administration has appealed her injunction to the 9th Circuit.

The administration’s compliance with the Central District court order was questioned by immigrant advocates on Wednesday after a raid on a Home Depot store near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, in which officers said 16 Latin American workers were detained. An American Civil Liberties Union attorney, Mohammad Tajsar, said the government “seems unwilling to fulfill the aims of its racist mass deportation agenda without breaking the law.”

There is ample evidence that many businesses in the district “unlawfully employ illegal aliens and are known to hire them on a day-to-day basis; that certain types of jobs — like day labor, landscaping, and construction — are most attractive to illegal aliens because they often do not require paperwork; that the vast majority of illegal aliens in the District come from Mexico or Central America; and that many only speak Spanish,” Sauer told the Supreme Court.

“No one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal immigrant, the Justice Department attorney said. “But in many situations, such factors — alone or in combination — can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States.”

The Supreme Court told lawyers for the immigrants to file a response by Tuesday. 

The case is Noem v. Perdomo, No. 25A169.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/scotus-immigration-california-20809308.php

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