Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Alternet: Donald Trump is doomed — and he knows it | Opinion

Posted on by
Reply

The neofascist takeover of America — of our cities, universities, media, law firms, museums, civil service, and public prosecutors who tried to hold Trump and Trump’s vigilantes accountable to the law — worsens by the day.

As I’ve traveled across the country peddling my book, trying to explain how this catastrophe happened and what we can do about it, I’ve found many Americans in shock and outrage.

“How could it have happened so fast?” they ask. I explain that it actually occurred slowly and incrementally over many years until our entire political-economic system became so fragile that a sociopathic demagogue could bring much of it down.

Some people I speak with are still in denial and disbelief. “It’s not as bad as the press makes it out to be,” they say. I tell them that it is — even worse.

Others are in despair — heartbroken and immobilized. “Nothing can be done,” they say. I tell them that hopelessness plays into the hands of Trump and his lackeys who want us to think that the game is over and they’ve won. But we can’t let them. The stakes are too high. Hopelessness is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Rest assured. The seeds of Trump’s destruction have already been sown. He will overreach. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of birthright citizenship, for example, and Trump announces he’s not bound by the Supreme Court, the uproar will be deafening.

Or the economy will bite him in the butt. As prices continue to rise and job growth continues to slow — due to Trump’s bonkers import taxes (tariffs), his attempt to take over the Fed, and his attacks on immigrants — America will fall into the dread trap of “stagflation”: stagnation and inflation. After months of this, his base is likely to turn on him — remember, many voted for him because he promised to bring prices down — and he and his Republican lackeys in Congress will be toast in the 2026 midterms.

Or his brazen corruption will do him in (he’s personally raking in hundreds of millions from crypto, for example). Or Putin will do him in (if Ukraine falls to Russia or an emboldened Russia strikes Lithuania). Or the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

He no longer has any truth-tellers to advise him — he has purged all of them. And a president who’s flying blind, without anyone around him to tell him he’s about to crash, will inevitably crash. Many innocent people will likely suffer “collateral” damage. But at least the nation will see him for who he is and consign him to the dustbin of history.

None of this argues for complacency. We must continue to fight — demonstrate, phone your representatives and senators, boycott corporations and organizations that are caving in to tyranny, protect the vulnerable, make good trouble.

But please do not fall into denial or despair, and don’t let anyone else.

Donald Trump is doomed — and he knows it | Opinion

https://www.alternet.org/trump-bonkers-2673943781

MSNBC: Alligator Alcatraz winds down operations, leaving Floridians on the financial hook

Posted on by
Reply
Alligator Alcatraz winds down operations, leaving Floridians on the financial hook
President Trump’s tariffs were struck down in court, however until a final weigh in by the Supreme Court is made, the import taxes will remain in effect on dozens of U.S. trading partners. Wall Street Journal national politics reporter Sabrina Siddiqui, Vote Save America Head Shaniqua McClendon, and former Rep. Carlos Curbelo join Alex Witt to discuss the tariff turmoil, Alligator Alcatraz’s decommissioning, and chaos at the CDC.

Blame your idiot governor for the $ quarter billion tab that Florida residents are being stuck with!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alligator-alcatraz-winds-down-operations-leaving-floridians-on-the-financial-hook/vi-AA1LB1HH

Forbes: Trump Says His Tariffs Collected ‘Trillions’ In Revenue—Here’s The Real Figure

Posted on by
Reply
  • “Without tariffs, and all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed, and our military power would be instantly obliterated,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
  • Trump claimed earlier this month that “trillions of dollars are being taken in on tariffs” and his levies have “not caused inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury’s coffers.”
  • Trump leaves out that tariffs are paid by U.S. companies to import foreign goods, with those costs eventually paid by U.S. consumers.
  • Trump’s latest comments on his tariffs follow a ruling late Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals, as the court wrote Trump overstepped his authority by issuing his reciprocal tariffs, a power the majority opinion said was “vested exclusively” as a “core Congressional power.”
  • The ruling prohibiting Trump’s tariffs won’t take effect until Oct. 14, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The truth: Trump’s tariffs have only “generated about $96 billion in revenue”.

Trump Claims Tariffs Earned U.S. ‘Trillions Of Dollars.’ Federal Data Says Otherwise.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has projected tariff revenue would reach $300 billion per year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/08/31/trump-says-his-tariffs-collected-trillions-in-revenue-heres-the-real-figure

Newsweek: Gavin Newsom mocks Donald Trump after tariff plan struck down

Posted on by
Reply

California Governor Gavin Newsom took a swipe at President Donald Trump on Friday after an appeals court struck down his sweeping plan on global tariffs.

Why It Matters

The decision undercut a central element of President Trump’s unilateral trade strategy and could potentially raise the prospect of refunds if the tariffs are ultimately struck down.

The ruling set up an anticipated legal fight that could reach the Supreme Court.

What To Know

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Trump had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act IEEPA to declare national emergencies and impose broad import taxes on most trading partners, the Associated Press reports.

The legal challenge centered on two sets of actions: reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2—including up to 50 percent on some goods and a 10 percent baseline on most imports—and earlier tariffs announced February 1 targeting selected imports from Canada, China and Mexico tied to drug and migration concerns.

Newsom’s press office reacted to the ruling on X on Friday, saying, “If it’s a day ending in y, it’s a day Trump is found violating the law!”

The rebuke comes amid weeks of back-and-forths from the pair as Newsom has taken aim at Republicans‘ redistricting efforts and Trump’s implementation of national guard troops in U.S. cities.

Taking to his social media platform Truth Social, reacting to the ruling, the president vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court, saying in part that: “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else.”

What People Are Saying

Republicans Against Trump reacting to the president’s vow to appeal to the Supreme Court on X: “Grandpa is mad”

Retired U.S. Air Force General Robert Spalding reacting to Trump’s post on X: “Thank god”

William and Mary Law School Professor Jonathan Adler on X reacting to the ruling: “Whoa”

Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, on X: “BOOM. The federal appeals court rules Trump’s tariffs illegal, because they are. There’s no national emergency, and so the power to tariff a country rests with Congress. Trump admin has lost at every stage of the process, but stay tuned for the Supremes to chime in.”

Wolfers in a follow-up post: “This won’t end all tariffs. This ruling applies to tariffs applied to entire countries (which is most of the tariff agenda). The industry-specific tariffs use a different legal authority, and will remain. The White House has other (more limited) tariff powers it’ll dust off.”

What Happens Next

The appeals court did not immediately block the tariffs, however, allotting the Trump Administration until October 14 to appeal the decision.

Gavin Newsom mocks Donald Trump after tariff plan struck down
The rebuke comes as Newsom has taken aim at Republicans’ redistricting efforts and Trump’s implementation of national guard troops in U.S. cities.

https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-mocks-donald-trump-tariff-plan-struck-down-2121980

CNBC: Most Trump tariffs ruled illegal in blow to White House trade policy

Posted on by
Reply
  • A federal appeals court ruled that most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs are illegal, striking a massive blow to the core of his aggressive trade policy.
  • Trump is all but certain to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that most of President Donald Trump‘s global tariffs are illegal, striking a massive blow to the core of his aggressive trade policy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a 7-4 ruling held that the law Trump invoked when he granted his most expansive tariffs does not actually grant him the power to impose those levies.

Trump is all but certain to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. The appellate court paused its ruling from taking effect until Oct. 14, in order to give the Trump administration time to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on Friday’s ruling, which is the second straight loss for Trump in the make-or-break case.

The Trump administration has argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, empowers the president to effectively impose country-specific tariffs at any level if he deems them necessary to address a national emergency.

The U.S. Court of International Trade in late May rejected that stance and struck down Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs, including his worldwide “reciprocal” tariffs unveiled in early April. But the Federal Circuit quickly paused that ruling while Trump’s appeal played out.

Most Trump tariffs ruled illegal in blow to White House trade policy
The appeals court stayed its ruling until Oct. 14, giving the Trump administration time to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/trump-trade-tariffs-appeals-court-ieepa.html

Tampa Free Press: Federal Court Affirms Dismissal Of False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution Claims Against HSI Agents

Posted on by
Reply

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Plaintiff Karina Sigalovskaya, Citing Supreme Court Precedent that Limits Federal Officer Liability

Sigalovskaya claimed that during the search, Special Agent Abigail Braden falsely accused her of confessing to taking pornographic photos of her own child, leading to her arrest and pretrial detention. She was charged with sexual exploitation of children, a charge that was later dropped.

Sigalovskaya alleged that as a result of the fabricated evidence, she was held in jail for three weeks, lost temporary custody of her children, and was placed on the New York State Sex Offender Registry.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Karina Sigalovskaya against four special agents of the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) unit.

The decision, handed down on Wednesday, concludes a lengthy legal battle that began in 2015 and centers on allegations of false arrest and malicious prosecution.

The case stems from a 2013 incident where HSI agents allegedly unlawfully entered Sigalovskaya’s home. According to the complaint, the agents were searching for her common-law husband, who was under investigation for child pornography.

Sigalovskaya claimed that during the search, Special Agent Abigail Braden falsely accused her of confessing to taking pornographic photos of her own child, leading to her arrest and pretrial detention. She was charged with sexual exploitation of children, a charge that was later dropped.

Sigalovskaya alleged that as a result of the fabricated evidence, she was held in jail for three weeks, lost temporary custody of her children, and was placed on the New York State Sex Offender Registry. Her lawsuit sought damages for false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and denial of a fair trial.

The Second Circuit’s ruling upholds a lower court’s dismissal of the remaining claims against Special Agent Braden. The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the 2022 Supreme Court case Egbert v. Boule, which significantly narrowed the ability of individuals to sue federal officers for constitutional violations under a legal principle known as a Bivens action. The Bivens doctrine allows a person to sue a federal agent for money damages for violating their constitutional rights.

In an opinion, the majority concluded that Sigalovskaya’s claims were no longer viable under the restrictive framework established by the Supreme Court.

The court found that Sigalovskaya’s claims, which focused on the fabrication of evidence, presented a “new context” that was meaningfully different from the original Bivens case. The court also noted that “special factors,” such as the existence of an alternative remedial process within the Department of Homeland Security, weighed against creating a new Bivens remedy.

he ruling was accompanied by three separate opinions from the judges on the panel, highlighting the complexity and debate surrounding Bivens claims.

Judge Myrna Pérez, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the dismissal, arguing that the existence of an internal grievance process within the Department of Homeland Security was a sufficient reason to dismiss the case, echoing the reasoning in the Egbert decision.

Judge Eunice C. Lee, also concurring in the judgment, provided a detailed analysis of the case’s “new context.” She concluded that the claim was distinct from the original Bivens precedent because it centered on fabricated evidence rather than a typical Fourth Amendment violation like a warrantless search or seizure.

Judge Gerard E. Lynch issued a partial dissent, arguing that the false arrest claim should have been allowed to proceed. He contended that Sigalovskaya’s claim was “materially indistinguishable” from the original Bivens case because both involved an arrest made without probable cause. Judge Lynch criticized the majority for drawing what he considered to be fine, intellectually dishonest distinctions that effectively undermine Bivens without explicitly overruling it.

The decision marks another instance of a federal appeals court limiting the scope of Bivens actions, a trend that began with the Supreme Court’s increasingly skeptical view of implied constitutional remedies against federal officials.

Federal Court Affirms Dismissal Of False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution Claims Against HSI Agents
Second Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Plaintiff Karina Sigalovskaya, Citing Supreme Court Precedent that Limits Federal Officer Liability The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Karina Sigalovskaya against four special agents of the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security…

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/federal-court-affirms-dismissal-of-false-arrest-malicious-prosecution-claims-against-hsi-agents/ar-AA1LlvfR

Washington Post: Two Virginia school districts sue Education Dept. in fight over gender policies

Posted on by
Reply

Arlington Public Schools and Fairfax County Public Schools sued the U.S. Department of Education, seeking to bar it from freezing funds to the Virginia districts amid a fight over a policy supportive of transgender students.

Arlington Public Schools and Fairfax County Public Schools filed lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Education on Friday, seeking to bar the federal agency from freezing funds to the districts in response to an ongoing debate over a policy supportive of transgender students.

The move is the latest in a fight between the Education Department and five Northern Virginia school districts over policies that allow students to use facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.

Earlier this month, school officials in Arlington, as well as Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties, declined to comply with a call from the Education Department to rescind the gender policies after an investigation determined they violate Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination.

In response, the Education Department said it would start the process to “suspend or terminate” funding from the five districts. The following week, the department announced it placed the school districts on “high-risk” status, which would make it harder for the systems to receive future federal funds.

“States and school districts cannot openly violate federal law while simultaneously receiving federal funding with no additional scrutiny. The Northern Viriginia[sic] School Divisions that are choosing to abide by woke gender ideology in place of federal law must now prove they are using every single federal dollar for a legal purpose,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote in a statement.

The new complaints from the Arlington and Fairfax school district, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seek immediate relief from the court to reverse that decision.

In a news release, Arlington schools said the federal money supports academics, counseling, and free and reduced meals for students.

Leaders from the Northern Virginia districts have stood behind policies they say satisfy state and federal antidiscrimination laws and create welcoming environments for students. Revoking their transgender student policies, the school districts argue, would put them in violation of the law.

The Education Department launched its investigations after a Title IX complaint was filed by America First Legal — a conservative group founded by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/08/29/virginia-school-district-sues-education-department-transgender-policy

No paywall:

Two Va. school districts sue U.S. Education Dept. in fight over gender policies

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/two-virginia-school-districts-sue-education-dept-in-fight-over-gender-policies/ar-AA1LvdIK

Associated Press: Appeals court blocks Trump administration from ending legal protections for 600,000 Venezuelans

Posted on by
Reply

A federal appeals court on Friday blocked the Trump administration’s plans to end protections for 600,000 people from Venezuela who have had permission to live and work in the United States.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that maintained temporary protected status for Venezuelans while the case proceeded through court.

An email to the Department of Homeland Security for comment was not immediately returned.

The 9th Circuit judges found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had no authority to vacate or set aside a prior extension of temporary protected status because the governing statute written by Congress does not permit it. Then-President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration had extended temporary protected status for people from Venezuela.

“In enacting the TPS statute, Congress designed a system of temporary status that was predictable, dependable, and insulated from electoral politics,” Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote for panel. The other two judges on the panel were also nominated by Democratic presidents.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco found in March that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that President Donald Trump’s Republican administration overstepped its authority in terminating the protections and were motivated by racial animus in doing so. Chen ordered a freeze on the terminations, but the Supreme Court reversed him without explanation, which is common in emergency appeals.

It is unclear what effect Friday’s ruling will have on the estimated 350,000 Venezuelans in the group of 600,000 whose protections expired in April. Their lawyers say some have already been fired from jobs, detained in immigration jails, separated from their U.S. citizen children and even deported. Protections for the remaining 250,000 Venezuelans are set to expire Sept. 10.

Congress authorized temporary protected status, or TPS, as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. It allows the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to grant legal immigration status to people fleeing countries experiencing civil strife, environmental disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return to that home country.

In ending the protections, Noem said that conditions in Venezuela had improved and that it was not in the U.S. national interest to allow migrants from there to stay on for what is a temporary program.

Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. Their country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

Attorneys for the U.S. government argued the Homeland Security secretary’s clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program were not subject to judicial review. They also denied that Noem’s actions were motivated by racial animus.

Appeals court blocks Trump administration from ending legal protections for 600,000 Venezuelans
A federal appeals court has blocked the Trump administration’s plans to end protections for 600,000 people from Venezuela who have had permission to live and work in the United States.

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-trump-temporary-status-venezuelans-7c70b2d301c43663a6f506af527637a4

Independent: Kilmar Abrego Garcia seeks gag order against Trump administration, singles out Noem and Bondi’s ‘inflammatory’ attacks

Posted on by
Reply

Barrage of public attacks could taint jury pools with ‘irrelevant, prejudicial, and false claims,’ according to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is asking a federal judge for a gag order to stop Trump administration officials from publicly attacking him with “inflammatory” statements that attorneys say are threatening his right to a fair trial on criminal smuggling charges.

Lawyers for the wrongly deported Salvadoran immigrant say Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi, among others, have spent months publicly disparaging his “character and reputation” by smearing him as a wife beater, pedophile, gang member and terrorist.

“The government’s ongoing barrage of prejudicial statements severely threaten — and perhaps have already irrevocably impaired — the ability to try this case at all — in any venue,” lawyers wrote Thursday night.

The Trump administration has “distorted the events and evidence underpinning his case to the public; misrepresented his criminal record; disseminated false, irrelevant, and inflammatory claims; and expressed the opinion that he is guilty of the crimes charged,” lawyers wrote.

Last month, the federal judge overseeing the criminal case ordered his release from jail before trial, finding that prosecutors failed to show “any evidence” that his history or the arguments against him warrant his ongoing detention. Judges have found the allegations “fanciful” and formally ruled that he does not pose a danger to the public.

Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to a brutal prison in his home country, igniting a high-profile legal battle for his return at the center of Donald Trump’s anti-immigration agenda.

Government lawyers admitted he was removed from the United States due to a procedural error, and several federal judges and a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” his return after his “illegal” arrest.

But the government spent weeks battling court orders for his return while officials launched a barrage of public attacks, declaring that he would never again step foot in the country.

He was then abruptly returned in June to face allegations that he illegally moved other immigrants across the country. He has pleaded not guilty.

In their request to keep him in jail before trial, federal prosecutors claimed he is a member of the transnational gang MS-13 and “personally participated in violent crime, including murder.”

Prosecutors also claimed he “abused” women and trafficked children, firearms and narcotics, and there is also an ongoing investigation into “solicitation of child pornography.”

Abrego Garcia is not facing any charges on any of those allegations, nor has he been convicted of anything. A federal judge determined that the government failed to link those allegations to evidence that implicates him.

Abrego Garcia’s wife had previously sought a protective order against him several years ago, though she never pressed charges and said the couple has since resolved their disputes. She has played a prominent public role defending him.

Last week, a federal judge granted his release from pretrial detention. Immigration authorities arrested him days later and threatened to deport him to Uganda.

A separate judge has blocked the government from deporting him while he challenges his latest arrest. A decision is expected after October 6.

His attorneys have argued that the indictment is aimed at punishing Abrego Garcia for his ongoing legal battle with the Trump administration, which has “vilified” him from the moment the case made headlines that caused massive political headaches for the White House.

After he was released from jail this month, Noem labeled him a “MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, serial domestic abuser and child predator.”

That same day, the White House called him “a criminal illegal alien, wife-beater and an MS13 gang member facing serious charges of human smuggling.”

This week, the president called him an “animal” who had “beat the hell out of his wife.”

But the “pièce de résistance,” according to Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, was a cartoon posted by the White House’s official X account depicting him with “MS-13” written beneath it.

“If the government is allowed to continue in this way, it will taint any conceivable jury pool by exposing the entire country to irrelevant, prejudicial, and false claims about Mr. Abrego,” lawyers wrote.

A DHS official told The Independent that if Abrego Garcia does “not want to be mentioned” by administration officials, “then he should have not entered our country illegally and committed heinous crimes.”

“Once again, the media is falling all over themselves to defend this criminal illegal MS-13 gang member who is an alleged human trafficker, domestic abuser, and child predator,” the official added.

“The media’s sympathetic narrative about this criminal illegal alien has completely fallen apart, yet they continue to peddle his sob story,” the official said. “We hear far too much about gang members and criminals’ false sob stories and not enough about their victims.”

The Justice Department declined to comment to The Independent.

I can’t recall ever seeing the gov’t so obsessed with demonizing someone as Kilmar Garcia.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia seeks gag order against Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi
Barrage of public attacks could taint jury pools with ‘irrelevant, prejudicial, and false claims,’ according to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/kilmar-abrego-garcia-gag-order-trump-noem-bondi-b2816582.html

Raw Story: DOJ’s shock move lets Trump stack immigration courts with handpicked lawyers

Posted on by
Reply

The Justice Department plans to scrap longstanding rules and qualifications for immigration judges and create a new policy where it can appoint any lawyer it wants to temporarily preside over cases, reported Government Executive on Wednesday.

“The change gives Attorney General Pam Bondi wide latitude in selecting officials to oversee asylum and other cases pending before the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that runs the nation’s immigration courts,” said the report. “That authority could provide President Trump with additional power to withhold legal status from immigrants and expedite his mass deportation efforts.”

Immigration judges are different from typical so-called “Article III” judges, like the Supreme Court, courts of appeals, and district courts, who are constitutional officers appointed for life; they are instead “Article I” judges who were authorized by Congress to serve at the pleasure of the presidential administration and hear narrow types of subject matter issues.

“Since 2014, the department has allowed only former immigration judges, administrative law judges from other agencies or Justice attorneys with at least 10 years of experience related to immigration law to serve as temporary immigration judges, or TIJs,” said the report. “In its update, to be issued Thursday as a final rule, EOIR called those parameters overly restrictive, noting it has hired fewer than a dozen temporary judges since the Obama administration put them into place.”

The shortage of immigration judges available to hear cases has been a contentious issue for years, and was part of the reason for the massive backlog of cases for the surge of migrants in the years prior to the Trump administration.

A bipartisan immigration deal cut in the final years of the Biden administration would have established more funding for immigration courts to operate on an expedited basis; however, Trump worked behind the scenes to tank the deal among Republican lawmakers.

This makes a mockery of justice under administrative judges. All administrative judges should be removed from Department of Justice and placed under the supervision of the circuit / district courts.

DOJ’s shock move lets Trump stack immigration courts with handpicked lawyers

https://www.rawstory.com/doj-judges