DHS blasts 'ACTIVIST' Biden judge's order to cut loose hundreds of illegal aliens in Chicago, pause deportations



Despite the ongoing obstructionism by Chicago's deeply unpopular mayor, Brandon Johnson (D), and other open-borders activists, federal immigration agents continue to risk life and limb with the aim of unburdening the crime-ridden sanctuary city of some of the roughly 150,000 illegal aliens who have sapped its resources, strained its systems, and endangered its people.

'An ACTIVIST JUDGE is putting the lives of Americans directly at risk.'

A Biden judge decided on Wednesday to undo some of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's hard work, ordering the Trump administration to free hundreds of the illegal aliens recently apprehended in the Chicago area, including some of those captured during the Department of Homeland Security's Operation Midway Blitz.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Blaze News in a statement. "At every turn, activist judges, sanctuary politicians, and violent rioters have actively tried to prevent our law enforcement officers from arresting and removing the worst of the worst."

"Now an ACTIVIST JUDGE is putting the lives of Americans directly at risk by ordering 615 illegal aliens be released into the community," added McLaughlin.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings, a Biden appointee, ruled last month that ICE had violated a 2022 consent decree settlement that barred federal immigration agents from conducting warrantless arrests unless they have cause to suspect an individual is both an illegal alien and a flight risk.

The settlement, which was the result of a lawsuit filed by the open-borders advocacy organization National Immigrant Justice Center and the ACLU of Illinois, was set to expire on May 12, 2025. However, the NIJC filed a motion to continue enforcing the settlement earlier this year after ICE made a series of warrantless illegal alien arrests.

RELATED: Federal judge wildly oversteps her bounds with Border Patrol commander in Chicago

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Cummings, who previously claimed that NIJC's pending motion kept the settlement alive, decided on Oct. 7 to extend the consent decree until Feb. 2, 2026, and ordered ICE to apply it to all agents nationwide.

On Wednesday, Cummings went even farther to appease the open-borders activists, ordering ICE to free 13 illegal aliens by Friday and to release another 615 illegal aliens on bond into a monitoring program by Nov. 21, unless the Trump administration appeals and/or demonstrates that the arrests were in keeping with the consent decree.

Lawyers for the government are considering an appeal, indicating that at least 12 of the 615 illegal aliens arrested in Chicago between June and early October are considered high flight risks, reported Axios.

The activist judge also ordered the Trump administration to pause deportation and voluntary departure procedures for all those illegal aliens who are pending release and to provide additional information concerning all arrests that have taken place since his October ruling.

Michelle Garcia, deputy legal director at the ACLU of Illinois, suggested that by committing to enforcing the consent decree, Cummings has set the stage for "even more of the hundreds of people illegally arrested and detained during Operation Midway Blitz to be released."

Mark Fleming, associate director of litigation at NIJC, also celebrated Cummings' apparent judicial activism, stating, "We are grateful that Judge Cummings sees the urgency of this moment and has ordered the Trump administration to allow hundreds to leave the inhumane detention centers where they are being unlawfully held and to have a chance at the due process our laws require."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Why pro-life Americans can’t trust the courts any more



Americans love to blame politicians — and often with good reason. But the real power in this country doesn’t rest with the people we elect. It rests with the ones we don’t. Unelected judges now govern America. They don’t interpret laws. They rewrite them.

Activist judges have become the unelected elite now running our country, handing down rulings that override the will of voters, defy elected legislatures, and erase laws they don’t like.

One state is trying to protect life; the other is trying to shield those who end it. And a single judge gets to pick which law counts.

They employ manipulative language to justify their overreach. If you don’t comply, blood is on your hands. Whether it’s the environment, vaccine mandates, border control, or abortion access, the refrain is always the same: Submit to the ruling, or people will die.

The irony couldn’t be more blatant.

In many cases involving abortion policy, it is in fact judges’ rulings that cost lives — lives of the unborn babies impacted by their rogue, dangerous decisions.

Take the recent case in Tennessee, where a federal judge blocked a law that protected minors from being trafficked across state lines for secret abortions. The law didn’t punish women. It didn’t outlaw abortion. It simply required parental involvement, something the majority of Americans support. But for activist judges, parental rights are optional if abortion is the end goal.

In New York, another judge defied federal authority and openly refused to cooperate with Texas law enforcement to hold a doctor accountable for illegally prescribing abortion pills. One state is trying to protect life; the other is trying to shield those who end it. And a single judge gets to pick which law counts.

Meanwhile, a federal judge overturned efforts to defund Planned Parenthood nationwide, even after Congress passed clear budget restrictions. The elected branches — chosen by the people — made a decision. But it didn’t matter. The judge didn’t like it, so the ruling class overruled the people and prioritized its holy grail: abortion.

Judicial activism has turned the courts into abortion war rooms. Judges now see themselves not as interpreters of law but as defenders of an ideology that elevates abortion above the democratic process. Their rulings don’t reflect any laws. They reflect a commitment to abortion at any cost.

It’s not just dangerous. It’s undemocratic.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court is beginning to push back. In a recent ruling, the court clarified that district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions and block federal policies. It’s a necessary and overdue correction. But it’s only the beginning.

RELATED: Judicial activism strikes again in 14th Amendment decision

Photo by Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and gave power back to the people. In many states across the country, Americans responded by electing leaders and passing laws to protect the unborn. But today, activist judges are overriding those efforts, blocking pro-life laws and shielding abortionists from accountability.

We need judges who apply the law, not rewrite it. Until that happens, every unborn child, every woman in danger of being exploited by the abortion industry, and every citizen fighting for life will remain at the mercy of unelected rulers.

The Dobbs decision was only the beginning. Now we must press forward to ensure that the will of the people is honored and the most vulnerable among us are finally protected.

Trump fighting 'unconstitutional power grab' by Obama judge who reopened the floodgates



President Donald Trump determined on his first day back in office that the "current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution."

He then proclaimed, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, that migrants stealing into the homeland would henceforth be restricted from claiming asylum until the invasion was over. Those who failed to provide federal officials with sufficient personal information at legal ports of entry would similarly be restricted in making asylum claims.

Of course, this proclamation enraged all the usual suspects on the left, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the asylum ban in February on behalf of three radical activist groups and a handful of foreigners denied asylum.

'An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.'

According to the activist groups' complaint, the proclamation was "as unlawful as it is unprecedented," and "immigration — even at elevated levels — is not an 'invasion.'"

On Wednesday, an Obama judge weaseled around the U.S. Supreme Court's June 27 determination regarding nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA Inc. in order to universally bar the administration from expelling asylum seekers from the United States.

RELATED: Lawfare strikes again: Rogue judge ignores SCOTUS, shields 500,000 from Trump's immigration crackdown

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Trump had exceeded his executive authority in adopting "an alternative immigration system" and that his day-one proclamation was unlawful.

"Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the president or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," wrote Moss. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."

While the Supreme Court indicated last week that the national injunctions weaponized against the Trump administration by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts," Justice Brett Kavanaugh recognized in his concurring opinion that district courts may still be able to "grant or deny the functional equivalent of a universal injunction — for example, by granting or denying a preliminary injunction to a putative nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(2)."

Moss embraced this "functional equivalent of a universal injunction" and certified all border-jumping asylum seekers "who are now or will be present in the United States" as a protected class.

'The American people see right through this.'

Moss did, however, stay his ruling two weeks pending an appeal from the Trump administration. Depending on how the appeal goes, the floodgates could be reopened to multitudes of foreign nationals seeking asylum.

"To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a marxist judge has declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (eg a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States," wrote White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.

Miller added, "The West will not survive if our sovereignty is not restored."

Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin similarly underscored the gravity of Moss' ruling, noting in a statement obtained by CNN, "The President secured the border in historic fashion by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. Today, a rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions."

RELATED: Alligator Alcatraz is a warning to illegal immigrants in the US: Leave now or end up here

Photo by GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images

While the White House did not comment on whether Trump might follow President Abraham Lincoln's example of taking actions that bypass or supersede the rulings of meddlesome judges, it indicated the administration expects to win on appeal.

"A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to Blaze News. "The judge's decision — which contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling against granting universal relief — would allow entry into the United States of all aliens who may ever try to come in illegally."

"This is an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty," continued Jackson. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal."

Attorney General Pam Bondi characterized Moss as a "rogue" judge "trying to circumvent the Supreme Court's recent ruling against nationwide injunctions."

"The American people see right through this," said Bondi. "Our attorneys ... will fight this unconstitutional power grab as [Trump] continues to secure our border."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Rogue' Biden judge ignores biological truth, blocks Trump's common-sense passport policy



Gender ideologues' narrative about sex, identity, and the supposed benefits of medical transvestism has collapsed in recent years under the weight of comprehensive scientific studies. Polling shows the American public also majoritively rejects their core claims and policy aims.

With science and public opinion largely against them, gender ideologues now appear to be primarily fighting their war against common sense in the courts, where they are, for the most part, losing. Meddlesome U.S. district court judges are, however, doing their part to delay the final defeat of gender ideology, at least where the law and federal policy are concerned.

'Gender ideology is internally inconsistent.'

A day before the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Tennessee's ban on sex-change genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors, a Biden judge blocked the Trump administration from requiring passports to accurately reflect the holders' sex.

White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement to Blaze News, "This is yet another attempt by a rogue judge to thwart President Trump's agenda and push radical gender ideology that defies biological truth."

"There are only two genders, there is no such thing as gender 'X,' and the president was given a mandate by the American people to restore common sense to the federal government," added Kelly.

RELATED: Trump claims another scalp in war on gender ideology: Children's Hospital LA to shutter child sex-change center

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order rejecting gender ideology and instructing the government to recognize only two sexes, male and female.

"'Gender ideology' replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true," Trump said in his order.

The president noted further that "gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body."

The president directed his secretaries of state and homeland security to ensure that government-issued identification documents, including passports and visas, were reality-affirming — as they had been until 2021, when the Biden administration began allowing people to choose their own sex marker as well as a third marker, "X," instead of an "M" or an "F" marker.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

Blaze Media Illustration

Several transvestites joined the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Covington & Burling LLP in a lawsuit over the passport policy earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick granted them a preliminary injunction in April preventing the State Department's enforcement of Trump's Executive Order 14168 while the lawsuit played out — but only as it applied to six of the plaintiffs.

Kobick suggested that the plaintiffs' inability to extend their self-deception to their federal documents would make them more "likely to experience worsened gender dysphoria, anxiety, and psychological distress, and they will face a greater risk of experiencing harassment and violence."

The Massachusetts-based Biden judge expanded her injunction on Wednesday after the plaintiffs amended their complaint and moved to apply the preliminary injunction to other potentially affected gender-benders whom they wanted broadly to be certified as a class.

Adopting the language of gender ideologues, Kobick granted the plaintiffs class certification, meaning that the lawsuit can now apply to "people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them under the Passport Policy and/or who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria," people who simply want their passport to indicate the wrong sex, and "all people who currently want, or in the future will want, a U.S. passport and wish to use an 'X' sex designation."

'The government has failed to meet this standard.'

"Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department's adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans," wrote Kobick.

RELATED: Behind the rainbow curtain: Who is funding the trans agenda targeting kids?

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

"The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny," added the Biden judge. "That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard."

Li Nowlin-Sohl, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV Project, called the ruling "a historic win in the fight against this administration's efforts to drive transgender people out of public life. The State Department’s policy is a baseless barrier for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans and denies them the dignity we all deserve."

When asked about the ruling, a State Department spokesperson told Blaze News that as a general matter, officials "do not comment on pending or ongoing litigation."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Even Trash Isn’t Safe from California’s Regulatory Overkill

The Golden State’s overreach extends to the garbage, but these policies ignore the real trash.

Trump's birthright citizenship order may not fly — but activist judges could soon find themselves grounded



The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in the case Trump v. CASA Inc., along with the related cases Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey, concerning President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.

The court was focused on procedural questions — particularly with regard to federal judges' apparent efforts to direct U.S. policy through the imposition of nationwide injunctions — rather than the constitutionality of the order, although its legality came up on occasion.

The court, which is expected to render its decision by late June or early July, may end up blocking the order but possibly also reining in meddlesome federal judges.

Background

Trump issued the executive order ending birthright citizenship on Jan. 20.

Days later, a Seattle-based U.S. district judge, responding to a lawsuit brought by four Democrat-led states, deemed the order "blatantly unconstitutional," and slapped it with a nationwide injunction — one among the 40 issued in recent months that have prompted accusations of a "judicial coup." A Biden judge and an Obama judge similarly blocked the order before courts ruled on the legal merits.

Denied additional sets of eyes on the matter by federal appeals courts, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court in March for a partial stay but also drew the high court's attention to the efforts of district judges to "govern ... the whole Nation from their courtrooms."

'Enough is enough.'

Attorneys for the government noted in their application for a partial stay that "such universal injunctions, though 'a relatively new phenomenon,' have become ubiquitous, posing 'a question of great significance that has been in need of the Court's attention for some time.'"

The Congressional Research Service indicated there were at least 17 cases of national injunctions between Jan. 20 and March 27. That number has since risen to at least 40 — including 35 from the same five judicial districts. According to the government's application, district courts issued more nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders in the month of February than through the first three years of the Biden administration. Throughout the entirety of Barack Obama's presidency, only 19 were issued.

RELATED: Will the Supreme Court rein in rogue judges — or rubber-stamp them?

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Attorneys for the government argued further that nationwide injunctions, which have "reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration," transgress constitutional limits on courts' powers; are incompatible with foundational limits on equitable jurisdiction; are bad for the rule of law; risk the perception of the federal courts as an apolitical branch; and "compromise the Executive Branch's ability to carry out its functions, as administrations of both parties have explained."

"This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts' burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched," wrote the government's attorneys. "Only this Court's intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable."

The ask: Narrow down injunctions to the actual parties in the case.

Dr. John C. Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, noted in a Blaze News op-ed Thursday that both conservative and liberal justices on the high court have previously criticized the practice of single federal district courts lobbing nationwide injunctions to block policies enacted by the political branches.

Justice Elena Kagan, for instance, reportedly suggested, "It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for ... years."

On Thursday, the government appeared keen to draw out those outstanding concerns.

Showtime

There was some discussion during oral arguments about the legality of the order, what it would look like if partially implemented, and the government's primary contention that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment related to the children of former slaves, not those of illegal aliens who — as U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer put it — "weren't even present as a discrete class at that time."

Sauer assigned more energy, however, to hammering home the point that the nationwide injunctions are a "bipartisan problem" that exceed the judicial power granted in Article III of the Constitution; require judges to make "rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions"; require the "government to win everywhere while the plaintiffs can win anywhere"; and "prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions" in the lower courts.

His efforts were not in vain.

'We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.'

The justices seriously considered the legal basis for and impact of scrapping universal injunctions as well as alternative tools for expeditious legal action, including class action and certiorari before judgment.

After expressing a desire to temporarily "put out of our minds the merits of this and just look at the abstract question of universal injunctions," Justice Samuel Alito suggested that there are 680 district court judges, and while dedicated and scholarly, "sometimes they're wrong."

"All Article III judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that 'I am right and I can do whatever I want,'" said Alito.

RELATED: The legal case against anchor-baby citizenship revisited

annedehaas via iStock/Getty Images

Whereas colleagues on a multimember appellate court could keep that "occupational disease" at bay, Justice Alito suggested that a trial judge is relatively unbounded and unchecked as "the monarch of that realm."

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented the states challenging Trump's order, characterized nationwide injunctions as inconvenient, potentially frustrating but necessary — something that should not be "categorically off the table."

Justice Clarence Thomas noted, however, that "we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions."

'At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the last election.'

Chief Justice John Roberts added that in recent months, the Supreme Court was able to take expeditious action — the suggestion being a nationwide injunction is unnecessary to achieve a similar end.

Justice Neil Gorsuch cast doubt on the relative timeliness of a class action, noting that certifying a class takes time, and the process involves other hurdles, reported SCOTUSBlog.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that if Sauer was right in his assertion that Article III precludes universal injunctions, then class actions would similarly be illegal, a suggestion Sauer disagreed with "profoundly."

While the conservative justices' receptivity Thursday to the government's arguments is no guarantee of a partial win on the matter of nationwide injunctions, it is a hopeful sign for critics such as Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, who asked earlier this year, "Is there no end to this madness?"

Eastman noted, "Whatever the court decides, the consequences will ripple through the hundreds of lawsuits filed against the president’s executive actions. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the last election — and whether unelected district judges can override the policies chosen by the American people."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump DOJ tells courts to pound sand, not their place to order MS-13 member back to US



An Obama judge ordered the Trump administration on April 4 to bring a deported MS-13 member — found by more than one immigration court to be a "danger to the community" — back to the United States. Days later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court's ruling in part, noting that the administration must "facilitate" Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return.

The Trump administration, ever defiant, effectively told the federal courts to pound sand, which is for the best because Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele said Monday that he does not intend to release Abrego Garcia.

Attorneys for the government indicated in a Sunday filing that while the high court had instructed the Trump administration to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return, "reading 'facilitate' as requiring something more than domestic measures would not only flout the Supreme Court's order, but also violate the separation of powers."

The Supreme Court previously recognized that some of the language in U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' order was "unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority," adding that the lesser court "should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

'They've done nothing.'

The attorneys for the government suggested in their Sunday filing that this deference on foreign policy matters should be more or less total, noting, "The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner."

"That is the 'exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,'" continued the government lawyers. "Such power is 'conclusive and preclusive,' and beyond the reach of the federal courts' equitable authority."

The plaintiffs in the case want the Trump administration to issue demands to the Salvadoran government and send American personnel to a foreign nation and an aircraft into a foreign nation's airspace to recover a citizen of that nation.

"All of those requested orders involve interactions with a foreign sovereign — and potential violations of that sovereignty," said the government lawyers. "A federal court cannot compel the Executive Branch to engage in any mandated act of diplomacy or incursion upon the sovereignty of another nation."

The Hill reported that Xinis was enraged Friday upon learning of the administration's continued refusal to comply with her order.

"Have they done anything?" the vexed Obama judge asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign.

"Your honor, I don't have personal knowledge," said Ensign.

"OK, so they've done nothing," said Xinis.

Michael Kozak, senior bureau official in the State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, confirmed in a sworn statement Saturday that Abrego Garcia "is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. He is alive and secure in that facility. He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador."

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, stole into the U.S. illegally and without inspection in 2011.

He was summoned in March 2019 to appear in removal hearings. During a bond hearing, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement revealed that a confidential informant flagged Abrego Garcia as an active member of the terrorist organization Mara Salvatrucha. The illegal alien's bond was denied, with the court finding he "was a danger to the community."

The following month, Abrego Garcia appealed the ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals but was once again recognized as a gang member as well as a flight risk.

The judge stated, "The fact that a 'past, proven, and reliable source of information' verified the Respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion."

Abrego Garcia's lawyers maintain that the gang label is false.

Although found removable, Abrego Garcia managed to secure a form of relief called withholding of removal in October 2019.

As a result, he avoided removal until March 12, when ICE agents in Baltimore notified Abrego Garcia that his "status has changed," then arrested him.

Government attorneys indicated that after his initial detention, the illegal alien was questioned about his gang affiliations, transferred to a detention center in Texas, then removed to El Salvador.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump Restored Showerhead Freedom, Now Let’s Fix The Sneaky Regulation Process

Citizens are helpless against government regulations. Without Trump’s intervention, Americans would be stuck with low quality showers.

House tries to limit overreach by activist federal district judges: 'We're shutting down the judicial coup'



The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 passed the U.S. House in a 219-213 vote along party lines on Wednesday.

The bill would amend chapter 85, title 8 of the U.S. Code to prohibit a U.S. district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who introduced the legislation in February, noted that the Trump-endorsed bill "would impose important limits on nationwide injunctions, which activist Federal courts are weaponizing in an attempt to undermine President Trump's legitimate powers under Article II of the Constitution."

While the legislation will likely fail in the U.S. Senate, where a handful of Democrats would have to come on board in order to reach the 60-vote threshold, the passage of the bill in Congress nevertheless signals mounting frustration with judicial overreach, particularly by Democrat-appointed district judges such as:

  • Ana Reyes, a Biden-appointed foreign-born lesbian judge who worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy and issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking the implementation of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military;
  • James Boasberg, an Obama judge who temporarily blocked summary deportations of apparent Tren de Aragua terrorists by the Trump administration under the Alien Enemies Act;
  • Leo Sorokin, an Obama judge who blocked the Trump administration's enactment of the president's birthright citizenship order;
  • Brendan Hurson, a Biden judge who issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Trump's executive orders targeting federal funding for the promotion of gender ideology; and
  • Loren AliKhan, a radical Biden judge who temporarily blocked Trump's federal spending freeze.

The Congressional Research Service indicated in a March 28 report that the "Department of Justice had identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama's presidency, and 55 such injunctions issued during the first Trump administration" as of February 2020.

'Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be.'

The CRS said there had already been at least 17 cases of national injunctions during the second Trump administration between Jan. 20 and March 27.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, is among the louder critics of this apparent effort by Democrat-appointed judges to prevent the execution of the president's agenda. He asked in the wake of one district judge's injunction, "Is there no end to this madness?"

"Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief," Miller wrote last month. "Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness."

'It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan.'

The House Judiciary GOP noted that the No Rogue Rulings Act "limits activist judges' power and ensures policy decisions stay with elected officials, not unelected judges."

"No more district court activist judges silencing millions and hijacking the President's constitutional powers," wrote Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas). "We're shutting down the judicial coup."

While Democrats uniformly voted against the bill in the House and may do so again in the Senate, Issa made clear that activist judges and judicial overreach could be a problem for everyone eventually.

"In recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds," Issa said on the House floor Tuesday, reported Politico. "This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan."

It appears Democrats are thinking short-term, content to let judges set federal policy.

"Here's a message: if you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable."

"When a ruling goes against the Administration, injunctions work as a check and balance against an administration bent on bullying the bench to its will," said Maryland Rep. Glenn Ivey (D). "This isn’t baseball; it can be a matter of life and liberty versus incarceration and impoverishment and should be a matter for serious and thoughtful consideration."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Woke Biden judge blocks Trump ban of transvestites in military, fueling concerns over judicial overreach: 'Lunacy'



Democrat-appointed activist judges appear eager to prevent the democratically elected president from exercising his constitutional authority and realizing his popular agenda.

In the latest instance of judicial overreach, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a Biden-appointed lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy — decided to indefinitely block the implementation of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military, suggesting it likely violated their constitutional rights.

At issue in Talbott v. Trump, a case brought by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is Trump's Jan. 27 executive titled "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness" and the resulting Pentagon guidance.

Trump underscored in his order that the military's policy to establish "high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity" is incompatible with the accommodations sought and health constraints faced by gender-dysphoric individuals.

Trump added that those "expressing a false 'gender identity'" at odds with their actual sex "cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service" and cannot satisfy the soldier's "commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."

The Pentagon's new guidance states:

Military service by Service members and applicants for military service who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service. Service by these individuals is not in the best interests of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security. Individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are no longer eligible for military service.

Reyes, formerly of the Feminist Majority Foundation, acknowledged in her Tuesday ruling that Trump has the "power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness." However, she figured that it was nevertheless her job to interfere, both characterizing Trump's exercise of presidential authority as an attempt to "deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving" and glossing over the military's prohibition on other medically and mentally compromised individuals enlisting, including those found to be on medications, women with abnormal uterine bleeding, men with deformed genitals, those with chronic anxiety, those who have committed self-harm, and those who have met in the past with psychiatrists.

Reyes suggested in her ruling that it was her responsibility as a judge to keep the executive branch in its proper place, despite acknowledging the "pernicious" nature of judicial overreach.

'Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be.'

Reyes suggested further that the "Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact."

Reyes clearly did not bother shrouding her animus toward the Trump administration in the ruling or during past hearings.

The foreign-born judge previously suggested that Trump, through his executive order directing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to update military policy to effectively ban medical and cosmetic transvestites from the military, was "literally erasing transgender people." In addition to claiming that Pete Hegseth, a recipient of two Bronze Stars, had no military experience, Reyes also tried to dunk on the administration with a bizarre distortion of Christian teaching, asking Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch how Jesus Christ would respond to Trump's order — prompting a misconduct complaint.

Fresh off condemning one Obama judge for preventing President Donald Trump from deporting terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and another Obama judge for "appoint[ing] himself king of foreign policy," Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, asked, "Is there no end to this madness?"

After noting that district court judges "have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces," Miller likened the actions taken by Reyes and other activist judges to "Marxist university professors being able to unilaterally veto, edit or override the exercise of presidential authority."

"Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief," wrote Miller. "Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness. It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end."

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk noted, "We either have a presidency or we have a rule by 677 gavel-wielding dictators."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded, "We don't play 'Hail to the Chief' when they enter the courtroom."

An analysis of nationwide injunctions issued between 2001 and 2023 published last year in the Harvard Law Review revealed that Democrat-appointed judges zealously tried to hamstring the first Trump administration. Of a total of 96 injunctions issued across four administrations, the Trump administration was slapped with 64. Of those 64 injunctions, 59 were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Over 50% of all injunctions issued since 1963 were issued against Trump administration policies.

It appears that Reyes and some of her peers are keen to pick up where their fellow travelers left off.

When the first Trump administration passed a ban on transvestites in the military, the Supreme Court let it take effect in 2019. It did not, however, rule on its constitutionality. Reyes' latest effort to undermine the president may pave the way to such a ruling.

The Pentagon has until Friday to ask a higher court to stay Reyes' order. Failing that, it can appeal.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!