The Trump administration has faced various legal setbacks in its efforts to implement sweeping deportations and immigration policies, with some of the judges issuing orders accusing officials of racism and unfavorable comparisons in dramatic opinions.
Judge Trina Thompson, a Biden appointee on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, offered the latest lengthy opinion, aimed at the morals of Trump administration officials trying to end temporary immigration programs for foreign nationals.
Challenges to revoking TPS bring racism allegations by judges
In a 37-page opinion Thursday blocking the administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua, she accused officials of “racial animus” based on their statements about criminal migrants.
“By stereotyping the TPS program and immigrants as invaders that are criminal, and by highlighting the need for migration management, [Homeland] Secretary [Kristi] Noem’s statements perpetuate the discriminatory belief that certain immigrant populations will replace the white population,” Thompson wrote in her opinion.
Thompson wrote in her rejection that she “shares” the “concern” of those suing the Trump administration regarding the president’s ability to end TPS at his discretion. The Biden-appointed judge added that her court “does not forget that this country has bartered with human lives” and included a lengthy footnote discussing the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
“The emancipation of slaves saw the same pattern, but in reverse. Many whites were uncomfortable with the idea of free non-white people in their communities, even if they had lived in the United States for generations,” Thompson wrote in her opinion. “Plaintiffs’ allegations echo these same traditions.”
Thompson also alleges that ending TPS for the three countries and requiring those who had the temporary status to return to their home country is the equivalent of freed slaves being removed from the U.S. and sent to Africa.
Earlier this year, Judge Edward Chen, an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, blocked the Trump administration from ending TPS for Venezuela and accused the Trump administration of similar claims of racial animus in his 78-page opinion.
“Generalization of criminality to the Venezuelan TPS population as a whole is baseless and smacks of racism predicated on generalized false stereotypes,” Chen wrote in his March order.
The Trump administration’s official reasons for ending the Temporary Protected Status for the countries have been that the reasons outlined for initially granting TPS are no longer applicable, and conditions have improved.
Other decisions bring emotional responses
While many dramatic opinions from federal judges blocking the Trump administration’s policies have come in TPS lawsuits, judges have also made fiery accusations in other issues. A ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday made another unfavorable comparison about the Trump administration’s policies.
Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, compared the president’s policies blocking the administration from rapidly deporting people who had previously been paroled into the country to the countries that illegal immigrants have fled in her order.
“This case’s underlying question, then, asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules,” Cobb wrote. “Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that, as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges … may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?”
Among the various rulings against the Trump administration in district courts, a case regarding the administration’s cancellation of diversity, equity, and inclusion grants at the National Institutes of Health brought another dramatic racial discrimination claim.
“I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable,” U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling in June. “I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.”
While the Trump administration has faced dramatic and blistering opinions at lower district courts, it has racked up several wins on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket on various issues, including terminating TPS.
The Supreme Court’s order allowing the administration to proceed with various policies, including immigration policies, has typically been accompanied by fiery dissents from the liberal minority on the high court.
Tag Archives: Jia Cobb
Washington Examiner: Judge blocks ICE deportation strategy for paroled immigrants
A federal judge on Friday blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “expedited removal” deportation strategy to detain paroled immigrants as quickly as possible.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb of the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration’s use of expedited removal exceeded the Department of Homeland Security’s legal authority, in addition to being arbitrary and capricious. The order temporarily halts the federal government’s efforts to deport immigrants previously paroled into the United States at a port of entry.
Cobb specifically blocked three actions: a DHS memo dated Jan. 23 directing immigration officials to apply expedited removal as broadly as possible; an ICE directive dated Feb. 18 authorizing officers to consider expedited removal for “paroled arriving aliens”; and a DHS notice dated March 25 terminating the Biden-era parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.
The court took issue with the administration’s actions to dismiss parole immigrants’ pending proceedings in immigration court and proceed to arrest them outside the courtroom afterward.
“This case’s underlying question, then, asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules,” Cobb wrote in the 84-page ruling. “Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that, as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges, may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?”
Such an incident occurred in June, when New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was arrested for refusing to leave an immigrant whose case was dismissed moments earlier. Lander and his companion were both restrained by masked plainclothes officers as seen in a viral video.
A growing number of Democratic lawmakers have since crafted legislation to bar ICE officers from wearing masks, which the agency says are used to protect its officers from getting doxxed.
Friday’s order is estimated to affect “hundreds of thousands of paroled aliens,” Cobb wrote.
The Trump administration criticized the ruling, saying it defies a Supreme Court ruling from May that upheld the termination of parole status for more than 530,000 illegal immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
“Judge Cobb is flagrantly ignoring the United States Supreme Court, which upheld expedited removals of illegal aliens by a 7-2 majority,” DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “This ruling is lawless and won’t stand.”
Whine, bitch, whine!

Washington Examiner: Federal court halts Trump’s asylum crackdown at US-Mexico border
A panel of federal judges blocked President Donald Trump‘s day-one proclamation restricting asylum claims at the United States-Mexico border.
One of the first proclamations of Trump’s second term was Proclamation 10888—Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion. The move forbade migrants from claiming asylum when crossing the border at any place outside a port of entry, and restricted requirements to claim asylum for those entering through said ports of entry. In July, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority with the move.
The 3-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit put an administrative pause on Moss’s ruling, which was lifted after their decision Friday.
In his 128-page ruling, Moss argued that Trump’s unilateral moves violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides the “sole and exclusive” means for deporting illegal immigrants. Trump’s proclamation had set up “an alternate immigration system” that violated the law, he claimed, rejecting the government’s argument that an out-of-control border necessitated the move.
“Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President … the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,” Moss wrote. “An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.”
Though he argued that an emergency doesn’t excuse the move, he seemed to cede that there was, in fact, an emergency.
“The Court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” Moss wrote. “But the INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country.”
The White House was quick to respond, arguing that the ruling violated the recent Supreme Court decision limiting the ability of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions on federal government policies.
“A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally. The judge’s decision — which contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling against granting universal relief — would allow entry into the United States of all aliens who may ever try to come to in illegally,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement obtained by Politico.
Department of Homeland Security Spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin derided Moss as a “a rogue district judge” who was “threatening the safety and security of Americans.”
The Washington Examiner reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for further comment.
Moss’s ruling is the latest of several major legal moves against Trump’s immigration agenda. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb of the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration’s use of expedited removal exceeded the Department of Homeland Security’s legal authority.
Cobb blocked three actions from the Trump administration: a Jan. 23 DHS memo directing immigration officials to apply expedited removal as broadly as possible; a Feb. 18 ICE directive authorizing officers to consider expedited removal for “paroled arriving aliens”; and a March 25 DHS notice terminating the Biden-era parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.
