A Chicago woman has told Newsweek she was “forcibly removed” from her vehicle by immigration agents. Dayanne Figueroa, a U.S. citizen and paralegal, said her car was struck by an unmarked government vehicle at the 1600 block of West Hubbard Street in Chicago on the morning of Friday, October 10, while she was on her way to get coffee before work.
A Chicago woman has told Newsweek she was “forcibly removed” from her vehicle by federal immigration agents.
Dayanne Figueroa, a U.S. citizen and paralegal, said an unmarked government vehicle struck her car at the 1600 block of West Hubbard Street in Chicago on the morning of October 10, while she was on her way to get coffee before going to work.
“I was in shock and terrified,” Figueroa told Newsweek. “Instead of handling the situation as a routine traffic incident, the masked agents, armed in hands, forcibly removed me from my car without questions and without informing me that I was under arrest.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told Newsweek that Border Patrol was making a targeted arrest when Figueroa’s vehicle blocked agents and struck an unmarked government vehicle.
Footage obtained by Newsweek appears to show armed federal agents detaining Figueroa, dragging her by the legs to remove her from her vehicle. Some agents brandish guns, and bystanders can be heard shouting, “You hit her,” as the situation unfolds.
Additional video obtained by Figueroa’s family from another witness provides a different angle of the encounter. The bystander who is filming tells federal agents: “You hit her. We all saw it.”
“You guys are f*****g scumbags, f*****g Nazis. They hit her car. You guys hit her, and you f*****g know it,” the bystander is heard saying.
“As agents were departing, the driver, a U.S. citizen, struck an unmarked government vehicle,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek.
“In fear of public safety and of law enforcement, officers attempted to remove her from the vehicle. She violently resisted, kicking two agents and causing injuries. This agitator was arrested for assault on a federal agent,” McLaughlin added.
Figueroa disputes DHS’s account, denying that she crashed into agents and accusing the immigration enforcers of using excessive force.
“The video evidence is clear: Agents crashed into me. I was not involved in any protest or related activity, and I intend to seek justice for how I was treated. I am confident the facts will speak for themselves,” she said.
Chicago has emerged as a focal point in the national conversation over immigration enforcement as federal authorities step up operations under the Trump administration’s Operation Midway Blitz. The initiative has included increased ICE activity across the city, with arrests and targeted actions in neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Critics say the operations have heightened fear among residents and strained community relations, while federal officials maintain that the measures are necessary to enforce immigration laws and detain individuals with criminal records.
Amid the Trump administration’s hard-line mass deportation push, there have been dozens of reports of U.S. citizens being questioned or detained by immigration authorities, raising concerns over racial profiling, the agencies’ practices and enforcement criteria. Multiple federal agencies—including Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—are being mobilized to carry out coordinated immigration operations as the administration pursues its goal of removing millions of migrants without legal status.
Figueroa described the experience as physically and emotionally distressing, saying the manner in which she was removed from her vehicle left her traumatized and injured. She said she was treated “like cattle.”
The paralegal said she was transported to multiple undisclosed locations and was not allowed to contact her family or legal counsel. She said she was never charged with a crime or informed of a legal reason for her detention.
“These actions constitute serious violations of federal civil rights law and multiple provisions of the United States Constitution,” Figueroa said.
She said she had recently undergone kidney surgery. “I am presently receiving ongoing medical treatment and attending numerous appointments to rehabilitate from recent kidney surgeries and from multiple new injuries directly caused by this assault,” Figueroa said.
Her family is now raising money on GoFundMe for legal and medical fees following the incident.
US Citizen dragged from car by Border Patrol in Chicago
“I was in shock and terrified,” Dayanne Figueroa told Newsweek.
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.
What part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is so hard to understand? Only a Totally Retarded Dumb-Assed Idiot (TRDAI) could miss the meaning of it:
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.
Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of TRDAIs in the Trump regime. 🙁
Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update
Fight over Trump’s order to deny birthright citizenship heads toward Supreme Court, with 14th Amendment protections at stake
The Trump administration has sued the City of Los Angeles for discriminating against federal immigration officers.
President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit Monday against Los Angeles, its mayor Karen Bass, and the Los Angeles City Council for “illegal” sanctuary city policies that it says “deliberately impede federal immigration officers’ ability to carry out their responsibilities.”
Two reasons why the feds will lose this one:
1. Masked Gestapo pigs are not a protected class under the discrimination laws.
2. The Tenth Amendent does not permit the federal government to order the states to do the feds’ bidding.
Trump Declares War on Los Angeles Following ICE Protests
The lawsuit claimed that the city discriminated against federal immigration officers using sanctuary city policies.
A federal judge ruled that Donald Trump acted illegally when he commandeered the California national guard and ordered thousands of troops to Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids. The troops return to the control of California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, at noon on Friday.
Newsom says use of national guard for Ice raids ‘ends tomorrow at noon’ – as it happened
Judge temporarily bars president from deploying troops to LA, an order president has already appealed. This blog is now closed.
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.
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.
Donald Trump has just been ordered by a federal judge to “return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”
In an order handed down Thursday just a couple of hours after a pitched hearing in San Francisco between Department of Justice lawyers and Golden State attorneys, Judge Charles Breyer awarded Gavin Newsom the temporary restraining order he sought over Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard on June 7 after protests over ICE raids of undocumented immigrants in and around L.A.
“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions,” the judge wrote in a 36-page order this evening. “He did not.” The Bill Clinton appointed judge added: “His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Newsom and the state Attorney General first filed suit against Trump, Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth and others in the administration on June 9. The gist of their argument was that the president overstepped his authority when he dispatched National Guard troops to the region to respond to protests of ICE immigration raids late last week. The governor said the president violated the law by not consulting with him first before the deployment.
On June 11, Newsom upped the ante and demanded a TRO to halt the troop movement and Trump’s brazen authoritarian tactics ASAP
Having already warned on “a monarchy” in the hearing earlier today, Breyer worried that “Defendants’ actions also threaten to chill legitimate First Amendment expression.” To that, and with the overriding Constitutional and jurisdictional issues at play, he laid out exactly what’s next for Newsom and Trump with this halting of military deployment to America’s second-largest city:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order: Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles.
Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. The Court further STAYS this order until noon on June 13, 2025.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to post a nominal bond of $100 within 24 hours. The bond shall be filed in the Clerk’s Office and be deposited into the registry of the Court. If said bond is not posted by the aforementioned date and time, this Order shall be dissolved.
Defendants are further ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why a preliminary injunction should not issue. A hearing on this order to show cause will be held on June 20, 2025 at 10 a.m. Plaintiffs’ moving papers shall be filed no later than June 16, 2025; Defendants’ opposition shall be due no later than June 18, 2025, and Plaintiffs’ reply shall be due on June 19, 2025.
Whether or not this White House complies with Breyer’s order is another matter.
Newsom Beats Trump As Court Curtails POTUS’ “Illegal” Use Of Troops In L.A.
POTUS just took a hit in his battle with the Governor of California for the streets of LA & troops being there
Controversy over former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen to issue presidential pardons has taken a new turn.
United States Pardon Attorney Ed Martin wrote on social media platform X, “The integrity of the American Pardon system requires that we examine the Biden pardons and who did what.”
“We will get the bottom of it.
“Count on us,” he concluded.
I’m not counting on much, other than the usual hyperbole from King Donald and his fan club.
US Pardon Attorney Ed Martin Announces Investigation of Biden Pardons
Pardon Attorney Ed Martin announces he’s investigating “who did what” amidst the controversy surrounding the Biden pardons.
President Trump has demonstrated he’s willing to tell any lie to justify jailing anyone.
Last month, President Donald Trump shared an edited image of the knuckles of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident with protected status wrongfully sent to a Salvadoran detention facility. The photo showed “MS13” apparently added above his knuckle tattoos, even though other photos of his hand did not have that text. Last week, I had a chance to ask Homeland Security Security Kristi [Bimbo #2] Noem if she had investigated how an edited image came into the president’s hands. Not only did she refuse to answer, she barely acknowledged that the image was edited.
Politics is hyperbole. I know that voters have become inured to politicians saying, “The opposing party is the end of the country as we know it!” But what we are witnessing today is like nothing we have seen since the founding of this country, almost 250 years ago. Every warning light on democracy’s dashboard now flashes red.
Since taking the Oval Office, Trump has never been coy about his ambitions to rule as a dictator rather than serve as a president, accountable to the people who put him there. In just the past few months, he’s laid out the groundwork to jail innocent people and silence his political enemies, all under the guise of “law and order.” Perhaps in just a few months, Trump’s authoritarian ambitions will be realized. And it will be like how Hemingway described how one grows broke: “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”Just last week, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy and one of his longest-serving enablers, said the White House was “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus for immigrants.
Let’s be clear: Suspending the constitutional right to challenge unlawful detention is not some academic exercise or abstract policy debate, as many on the right may claim. Miller is deadly serious. There is no ambiguity. Equally explicit is the United States Constitution: Only Congress can suspend habeas corpus, and only in cases of actual rebellion or invasion.
Suspending habeas corpus is the move of dictators and despots.
Last month, President Donald Trump shared an edited image of the knuckles of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident with protected status wrongfully sent to a Salvadoran detention facility. The photo showed “MS13” apparently added above his knuckle tattoos, even though other photos of his hand did not have that text. Last week, I had a chance to ask Homeland Security Security Kristi Noem [Bimbo #2] if she had investigated how an edited image came into the president’s hands. Not only did she refuse to answer, she barely acknowledged that the image was edited.
…
The groundwork for jailing the innocent is being laid right now — not behind closed doors, but out in the open.
First, Trump appointed Kash Patel as FBI director, an unqualified podcaster who published a book listing names of Trump’s enemies who should be imprisoned. I didn’t make the top 60; rather, I was mentioned in the foreword to Patel’s list as a legislator who should be targeted.
Next, in Trump’s first hours as president, rather than issuing executive orders that would lower consumer costs, he pardoned or commuted the sentence of every Jan. 6 criminal. A man willing to free hundreds of political allies seems more than willing to jail his political enemies.
Accordingly, last month, Trump directed his attorney general to investigate Christopher Krebs, former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Miles Taylor, former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security. Krebs made the mistake of declaring the 2020 election the most secure in history. Taylor had the courage to organize other concerned Trump national security officials to bring to light Trump’s constitutional crimes.
And Trump demonstrated he’s willing to tell any lie to justify jailing anyone — which brings us back to Abrego Garcia. In April, the Trump administration admitted in court that it had mistakenly sent Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.
Every court that’s heard Abrego Garcia’s appeal — including the Supreme Court — has ordered Trump to facilitate his return to the United States. When asked about the case, Trump boasted he “could” return Abrego Garcia, but he “won’t.” To justify the man’s imprisonment, Trump has pointed to the altered image.
Opinion | I confronted Sec. Noem because our democracy is threatened like never before
President Trump has demonstrated he’s willing to tell any lie to justify jailing anyone.
Federal agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement carried out a warrantless raid on Thursday targeting a local establishment in Newark, New Jersey, according to Newark Mayor Ras Baraka—who decried the move as an “an egregious act” in violation of the U.S. constitution.
Federal agents detained both undocumented residents and citizens, including a U.S. military veteran, Baraka said in a statement Thursday.
The local outlet PIX11 reported that ICE agents targeted the Ocean Seafood Depot, a wholesale seafood distributor. Store owner Luis Janota told the outlet that three people were taken into custody, including a Puerto Rican employee who is a military veteran. People from Puerto Rico have U.S. citizenship.
