Federal judges are throwing wrenches into the Trump administration’s immigration agenda with rulings that sidestep U.S. Supreme Court directives, as the Daily Caller reports. These lower-court decisions, often from judges appointed by Democrat-led administrations, are stalling efforts to enforce deportation and border security policies. It’s a judicial tug-of-war that’s testing the limits of executive power.
Federal judges, particularly those appointed by former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, are issuing rulings that block the Trump administration’s immigration policies, defying or creatively interpreting Supreme Court decisions. This pattern of resistance is gumming up the White House’s efforts to streamline deportations and secure the border. The judiciary’s pushback is bold, but is it overstepping?
In April, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, issued a preliminary injunction halting the transfer of deportable migrants to third countries. The Supreme Court later stayed Murphy’s order, yet he doubled down, leaning on a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor to claim his ruling still held. Such defiance raises eyebrows about judicial overreach.
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling in July, backed the Trump administration, allowing deportations to South Sudan and nullifying Murphy’s orders. This victory underscored the administration’s authority to act decisively on immigration. Yet, lower courts seem determined to find loopholes in other agenda areas as well.
In May, the Supreme Court overturned a federal district court’s attempt to block President Trump’s removal of two members from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court’s reasoning hinged on the president’s substantial executive power. Lower courts, however, aren’t always getting the memo.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit failed to stay a district court order blocking the removal of Consumer Product Safety Commission members. The Supreme Court stepped in again in July, granting a stay and citing precedent. It’s a recurring theme: the highest court reins in rogue rulings, but the defiance persists.
In late June, a 6-3 Supreme Court decision curbed lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, specifically targeting Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in the majority opinion, called these “universal injunctions” an overreach of judicial authority. “The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone,” Barrett stated.
She added, “These injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” Yet, lower courts have since exploited exceptions to issue nationwide injunctions, blocking Trump’s asylum ban at the southern border. It’s a sly maneuver that undercuts the Supreme Court’s clarity.
These same courts also ended deportation protections for Haitian nationals, further frustrating the administration’s agenda. The pattern suggests a judiciary eager to flex its muscles against executive action. Are these judges interpreting the law or rewriting it?
In July, Judge Michael Simon, an Obama appointee in Oregon, ruled that the Department of Homeland Security couldn’t broadly terminate parole status for migrants. Simon leaned on other lower-court decisions, conveniently ignoring that the Supreme Court had stayed those rulings. Such selective amnesia fuels accusations of judicial activism.
Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, blocked the Trump administration’s use of “expedited removal” for unauthorized migrants. Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin didn’t mince words: “Judge Cobb is flagrantly ignoring the United States Supreme Court, which upheld expedited removals of illegal aliens by a 7-2 majority.” She called the ruling “lawless” and predicted it wouldn’t stand.
McLaughlin’s frustration echoes a broader sentiment: lower courts are playing fast and loose with Supreme Court precedent. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in June, blasted a similar district court ruling as “a lawless act of defiance that disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations.” His words highlight the stakes of this judicial rebellion.
In late July, another federal judge barred the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for children of unauthorized migrants. This marked the third nationwide ruling against the order since the Supreme Court’s June decision. The persistence of these injunctions suggests a coordinated effort to stall Trump’s policies.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly signaled that nationwide injunctions overstep judicial bounds, yet lower courts keep issuing them. This cat-and-mouse game risks eroding public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality. When judges cherry-pick dissents or ignore stays, it smells more like politics than justice.
The Trump administration’s immigration agenda is clear: enforce deportations, secure borders, and assert executive authority. But with federal judges throwing up roadblocks, the fight is far from over. The Supreme Court may need to sharpen its gavel to restore order.
