Border czar Tom Homan told reporters that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations will expand after Labor Day in sanctuary cities nationwide, including Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Ore.
“You’re going to see a ramp up of operations in New York. You’re going to see a ramp up of operations continue in L.A. and, you know, Portland, Seattle,” Homan told reporters gathered near the White House. “I mean, all these sanctuary cities refuse to work with ICE … we’re going to address that.”
Homan said some other states are complying and working with ICE.
“We don’t have that problem in Texas and Florida, where all the sheriffs are working with us and they’re actually holding people for us and letting us know when someone’s being released,” he said. “So, we’re going to take the assets we have and move them to problem areas like sanctuary cities, where we know for a fact they’re releasing public safety threat illegal aliens to the streets every day. That’s where we need to send the majority of the resources, and that’s where they’re going.”
Homan was in Portland on Aug. 21 to meet with ICE personnel. After the visit, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson reaffirmed the city’s sanctuary status and said city employees, including police officers, will not assist in ICE operations.
“I was in San Diego and Portland in the last week meeting with the men and women of ICE to understand the hate that’s being pushed against them and letting them know the President has their six,” Homan said. “I have their six.”
The Center Square contacted Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office on Friday for comment on what the nation’s border czar had to say.
“Seattle will not be intimidated by the Trump administration’s threats. Suggesting that federal immigration raids or deployments of federal agents could soon target our city is not about public safety – it’s about political theater and an overreach of federal authority,” said Harrell in a statement emailed to The Center Square. “Seattle is a welcoming city, and our policies comply with both federal and state law. Immigration enforcement is the federal government’s responsibility, not the city’s, and we will not allow our police resources to be commandeered for political purposes.
“We are already working closely with Gov. [Bob] Ferguson and Attorney General [Nick] Brown, and have asked the City Attorney’s Office to review every legal option available to protect our residents. We have successfully taken this administration to court before … over its attempts to punish sanctuary cities, and we are prepared to do so again. We will stand firm, protect our communities, and preserve local control over our public safety resources. Seattle’s values are not up for negotiation.”
Homan said enforcement operations across the country are improving public safety for Americans.
“I look at the numbers every morning,” he said. “There’s about 22 pages of data; 70% of everybody arrested is a criminal,” he said. “But the left says, ‘Well, not criminal enough. It’s just a DUI.’ DUIs kill over 10,000 people a year. That’s a public safety threat. I don’t care what anybody thinks.”
As for the other 30% of arrestees, Homan explained, “We arrested thousands of national security threats. Many of them don’t have a criminal history because their whole goal is to lay low ‘til they do their dirty deed. Gang members. A lot of gang members don’t have a criminal history.”
He concluded, “And finally, final deportation orders. People who had due process at great taxpayer expense. They were ordered removed by a federal judge, and they didn’t leave. And we’re looking for them, too, because we’re sending a message to the whole world. It’s not okay to enter this country illegally. It’s a crime.”
The Trump administration is planning to remove nearly 700 Guatemalan children who had come to the U.S. without their parents, according to a letter sent Friday by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, and the Central American country said it was ready to take them in.
The removals would violate the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s “child welfare mandate and this country’s long-established obligation to these children,” Wyden told Angie Salazar, acting director of the office within the Department of Health and Human Services that is responsible for migrant children who arrive in the U.S. alone.
“This move threatens to separate children from their families, lawyers, and support systems, to thrust them back into the very conditions they are seeking refuge from, and to disappear vulnerable children beyond the reach of American law and oversight,” the Democratic senator wrote, asking for the deportation plans to be terminated.
It is another step in the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration enforcement efforts, which include plans to surge officers to Chicago for an immigration crackdown, ramping up deportations and ending protections for people who have had permission to live and work in the United States.
Guatemalan Foreign Affairs Minister Carlos Martínez said Friday that the government has told the U.S. it is willing to receive hundreds of Guatemalan minors who arrived unaccompanied to the United States and are being held in U.S. facilities.
Guatemala is particularly concerned about minors who could age out of the facilities for children and be sent to adult detention centers, he said. The exact number of children to be returned remains in flux, but they are currently discussing a little over 600. He said no date has been set yet for their return.
That would be almost double what Guatemala previously agreed to. The head of the country’s immigration service said last month that the government was looking to repatriate 341 unaccompanied minors who were being held in U.S. facilities.
“The idea is to bring them back before they reach 18 years old so that they are not taken to an adult detention center,” Guatemala Immigration Institute Director Danilo Rivera said at the time. He said it would be done at Guatemala’s expense and would be a form of voluntary return.
The plan was announced by President Bernardo Arévalo, who said then that the government had a moral and legal obligation to advocate for the children. His comments came days after U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited Guatemala.
The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the latest move, which was first reported by CNN.
Quoting unidentified whistleblowers, Wyden’s letter said children who do not have a parent or legal guardian as a sponsor or who don’t have an asylum case already underway “will be forcibly removed from the country.”
The idea of repatriating such a large number of children to their home country also raised concerns with activists who work with children navigating the immigration process.
“We are outraged by the Trump administration’s renewed assault on the rights of immigrant children,” said Lindsay Toczylowski, president and CEO of Immigrant Defenders Law Center. “We are not fooled by their attempt to mask these efforts as mere ‘repatriations.’ This is yet another calculated attempt to sever what little due process remains in the immigration system.”
Santana, Seitz and Gonzalez write for the Associated Press. Gonzalez reported from McAllen, Texas. AP writers Sonia Pérez D. in Guatemala City and Tim Sullivan in Minneapolis contributed to this report.
Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi said Thursday she was ramping up pressure on 32 “sanctuary jurisdictions,” urging them to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
“I just sent Sanctuary City letters to 32 mayors around the country and multiple governors saying, you better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she told a Fox News reporter.
“And they have, I think, a week to respond to me, so let’s see who responds and how they respond. It starts at the top, and our leaders have to support our law enforcement,” she added.
The measure comes after an Aug. 5 release from the Justice Department highlighting various states, cities and counties deemed noncompliant with regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.
“For too long, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction policies have undermined this necessary cooperation and obstructed federal immigration enforcement, giving aliens cover to perpetrate crimes in our communities and evade the immigration consequences that federal law requires,” [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wrote in the letter to officials across the country.
“Any sanctuary jurisdiction that continues to put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens can either come to the table or see us in court,” [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wrote in a post announcing the move.
She cited a late April executive order from President Trump as legal grounds for the push.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for the 32 jurisdictions that received letters from [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi.
The below jurisdictions received a letter from the Department of Justice on Aug. 5:
States:
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Illinois
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- New York
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- Vermont
- Washington
Counties:
- Baltimore County, Md.
- Cook County, Ill.
- San Diego County, Calif.
- San Francisco County, Calif.
Cities:
- Albuquerque, N.M.
- Berkeley, Calif.
- Boston
- Chicago
- Denver
- District of Columbia
- East Lansing, Mich.
- Hoboken, N.J.
- Jersey City, N.J.
- Los Angeles
- New Orleans
- New York City
- Newark, N.J.
- Paterson, N.J.
- Philadelphia
- Portland, Ore.
- Rochester, N.Y.
- Seattle
- San Francisco City
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5454204-bondi-immigration-enforcement-urge
The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump‘s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Why It Matters
The Justice Department’s plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights.
Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.
At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory.
What To Know
On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump’s executive order.
The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration’s legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.
One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, “unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.”
The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction.
The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition “expeditiously” for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court’s decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.
This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal.
The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized.
Fourteenth Amendment At Stake
Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.
What People Are Saying
President Trump, during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: “Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two—on our land, ‘Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,’ … Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous.” Adding: “…we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We’re the only country that has it, you know.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: “Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court.”
DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: “In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term.”
Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: “You can’t ‘executive order’ your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order.”
What Happens Next
The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari.
The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year.
For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump’s executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
https://www.newsweek.com/justice-department-issues-birthright-citizenship-update-2110176
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
Sharp knocks on the front door interrupted Firouzeh Firouzabadi’s Saturday morning coffee. On the porch of her suburban Maryland home were two law enforcement agents and a very familiar pit bull mix named Duke.
“Can you take this dog?” Firouzabadi recalled one of the men saying. “I said, ‘This is my son’s dog. Where is he?’ They wouldn’t say.”
At that moment, her adult son, Reza Zavvar, was handcuffed in the back of an SUV parked two houses down in the Gaithersburg neighborhood where the Iranian-born family has lived since 2009 — apprehended, he later said, that late June day by at least five federal immigration agents in tactical gear who told Zavvar they had been waiting for him to take Duke out for his regular morning walk.
More than a month later, Zavvar, 52, remains in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody,part of a surge of arrests of immigrants with standing court orders barring their deportation to their native countries.
The Trump administration has increasingly turned to sending people to third countries. In court papers, ICE said it plans to send Zavvar to Australia or Romania. He has no ties to either place.
Zavvar left Tehran alone when he was 12, arriving in Virginia in 1985 on a student visa secured by his parents as a way to escape eventual conscription into the Iranian army. He eventually received U.S. asylum, and then a green card.
His family joined him and they settled in Maryland, but in his 20s, Zavvar’s guilty pleas in two misdemeanor marijuana possession cases jeopardized his immigration status. In 2007, an immigration judge issued a withholding of removal order, determining it was unsafe for Zavvar to return to Iran. He built a life, went to college and has been working as a white-collar recruiter for a consulting firm.
…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/08/03/immigration-arrests-third-country-removals
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has halted the Trump administration’s effort to shutter the Job Corps training program — the nation’s largest residential career training program for thousands of low-income youth — becoming the second to do so within the span of a month.
U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich — an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term — on Friday granted the request for a preliminary injunction blocking the closing of 99 Job Corps centers throughout the nation, reasoning that the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) unilateral closing of the program, which was created and authorized by Congress, violated federal law.
The case stems from the Labor Department notifying the 99 private Job Corps centers across the nation on May 29, 2025, that they would “cease operations” by June 30.
The lawsuit was filed last month by a group of seven student-enrollees in the Job Corps program hailing from Georgia, Mississippi, Oregon, North Dakota, and Michigan on behalf of themselves as well as the putative class of students enrolled at all 99 centers affected by the program’s shuttering.
The complaint alleged that the Labor Department was legally required provide advance notice and an opportunity for public comment before closing any Job Corps center, as required by federal law. By failing to do so, the administration’s actions allegedly violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014.
The administration asserted that the shuttering of all Job Corps centers was a “statutorily authorized pause — as opposed to a closure,” a claim that Friedrich said did not stand up to scrutiny.
“This argument fails because DOL’s across-the-board shutdown extended far beyond any ‘pause’ contemplated by the statute,” the judge wrote. “The agency suspended operations at all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers without any expectation of future reopenings. And it effected the mass shutdown without complying with any of the statutory requirements that must precede a ‘pause’ in operations. DOL failed to conduct an individualized assessment or develop a performance improvement plan for any of the 99 centers. It instead suspended all operations based on the perceived failures of the Job Corps program as a whole.”
Friedrich said the nationwide shutdown was “not only unprecedented,” but also” inconsistent with its historic standard of practice.” While earlier “pauses” allowed for the realistic possibility that Job Corps centers would be reopened, here, the administration informed students that they should harbor “no expectation of transfer to another center or return to their current center.”
The court said there was no need to engage in any analysis regarding the difference between a “pause” and a “closure” because “the record unequivocally demonstrates that DOL unlawfully ‘closed’ all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers, in violation of the WIOA.”
“At bottom, DOL’s position is entirely circular: So long as the agency uses the term ‘pause’ and never makes a final decision to ‘formally close’ a center, it is authorized to shutter any Job Corps center indefinitely,” Friedrich wrote. “In DOL’s view, the WIOA’s procedural mandates hinge on the terminology the agency chooses to use, allowing it to sidestep its statutory obligations entirely. That cannot be correct. Because DOL unlawfully ‘closed’ all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers, in violation of the WIOA, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claims.”
The plaintiffs are being represented in the case by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Public Citizen. Adam Pulver, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, lauded the ruling.
“The Department of Labor’s decision to abruptly close Job Corps centers across the country, ignoring legal requirements and literally putting vulnerable young people on the street, was callous, and as the Judge today agreed, illegal,” Pulver said in a statement. “The Department’s ludicrous argument to the court, that in shutting down 99 Job Corps centers it was not actually closing those centers, was a naked attempt to evade clear law.”
Democrat-appointed federal judges in Oregon have repeatedly refused to jail suspects charged with violence at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility and an Elon Musk-owned Tesla store.
A court on Monday ordered Robert Jacob Hoopes to be released pending trial after he allegedly tried to ram his way into an ICE facility in Portland and injured an ICE officer’s eye with a rock, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Between July 8 and July 11, two other Oregon defendants accused of armed assaults on federal agents and a Tesla store were also given supervised release despite the Trump administration’s objections, according to court records and local media reports.
Hoopes, 24, allegedly threw rocks at the ICE building among a crowd of protesters on June 14 and struck an officer “in the head, causing a significant laceration over the officer’s eye,” according to the DOJ. “Later that same day, he and two other individuals were seen using an upended stop sign as a makeshift battering ram, which resulted in significant damage to the main entry door to the ICE building,” according to the department.
Judge Youlee Yim You, appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she decided to release Hoopes with a GPS ankle monitor in part because some in the community showed up to support the defendant in the courtroom, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.
Before Hoopes’s release, two federal judges rejected the DOJ’s pleas to detain transgender suspect Adam Lansky, who is accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at a Tesla dealership in January, aiming a rifle at a witness who drove away and returning the next month to fire shots into the building, court documents show.
The DOJ warned in court that Lansky was “a competitive shooter” and former member of the Socialist Rifle Association, a left-wing firearm education and training group with chapters across the U.S. “The [improvised explosive devices] used by Lansky were all manufactured by him using everyday items, empty glass bottles, gasoline, fabric, etc., all these items remain easily accessible to Lansky in the community if released,” prosecutors wrote in a July 9 filing.
Obama-appointed Judge Stacie Beckerman nonetheless ordered Lansky’s release to a halfway house, where individuals receive more freedom to pursue employment and other activities than in jail. Beckerman argued in court that Lansky’s alleged behavior was an “outlier event,” according to The Oregonian.
The DOJ appealed the decision to Judge Adrienne Nelson, who also rejected its request. Former President Joe Biden appointed Nelson as the first black woman to serve on Oregon’s U.S. District Court.
Judge Beckerman also moved anti-ICE defendant Julie Winters on July 8 to a halfway house, The Oregonian reported. Winters tried to light an incendiary device next to a Portland ICE building, threw a large knife at a federal officer without hitting the officer and pulled a second knife on officers who were restraining him at an anti-ICE protest on June 24, the DOJ has alleged.
An attorney for Lansky did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. Court records do not yet list attorneys for Hoopes or Winters.
Beckerman said Winters, who identifies as transgender, should be released from jail because officers put him in solitary confinement rather than house him with male or female inmates, according to The Oregonian. The DOJ, however, said his behavior is “extraordinarily concerning” because he is also charged in a state case with assaulting a police officer in December.
The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.
https://dailycaller.com/2025/07/29/blue-state-judges-refuse-jail-leftists-charged-violent-attacks
