Federal judges are increasingly opposing the agenda of the Trump administration and sometimes ignoring orders from the Supreme Court. While the administration has secured significant victories at the Supreme Court level—like limiting the scope of national injunctions by federal judges—some judges have still chosen to disregard those decisions.
For example, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, appointed by Biden, recently issued a ruling that blocks the expedited removal of illegal immigrants, a process known as “quick removal.” This ruling could significantly hinder the administration’s deportation efforts for the time being.
A spokesperson for the administration was quick to criticize the ruling, claiming that the Biden-appointed judge was disregarding a previous Supreme Court decision.
Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin pointed out in an official statement that Judge Cobb was neglecting the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court, which had supported deportation measures by a 7-2 vote. She described the ruling as “lawless and unbearable.”
A parallel case emerged a few months earlier, where Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, another Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction. This was connected to a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the transfer of deportable illegal immigrants to third countries. Despite the Supreme Court’s backing of the action, Judge Murphy upheld his order by citing a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In response, the Trump administration labeled Murphy’s defiance as an “unprecedented rebellion” against the Court’s authority.
Attorney General D. John Sauer also criticized the ruling, stating it jeopardized diplomatic relations and obstructed lawful efforts to carry out deportations. In July, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the government’s stance, ruling in favor of allowing groups of immigrants to be deported to South Sudan and declaring Murphy’s ruling invalid.
There have been additional instances lately. U.S. District Judge Michael Simon, appointed by Obama, ruled in July that the Department of Homeland Security could not end a wide-scale parole program for immigrants. He referenced other lower court decisions that also blocked similar actions, though the Supreme Court did not address those rulings.
In another instance, the Supreme Court overruled an order by a federal district court that restricted President Trump from terminating two members of the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court determined that the federal government was likely to prevail in that case due to the significant enforcement powers of these agencies.
Yet, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit didn’t uphold a district court ruling that similarly prevented the removal of members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reinstated the stay, using prior decisions as a guideline.
The Trump administration has expressed growing frustration with what it terms “activist judges” undermining their agenda. In late June, a significant victory came when the Supreme Court restricted such judges’ abilities to issue broad national injunctions, particularly in relation to Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, in a majority opinion, noted that lower courts should not have the power to block enforcement of laws or policies on such a wide scale, which might exceed the authority granted to them by Congress. While the White House hailed this decision as a significant victory, lower courts have since exploited exceptions that continue to allow for national injunctions.
Just recently, a federal judge blocked the presidential asylum ban at the southern border and prevented the end of deportation protections for Haitian citizens. In late July, another ruling from a federal judge halted the Trump administration’s efforts to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, indicating ongoing tensions in the legal landscape.
