Trump's intention to block judges who fail to protect government decisions.
March 28, 2025
Recently, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, has had public disagreements with President Donald Trump.
Recently, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, has had
public disagreements with President Donald Trump. The conflict arose after District
Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order blocking the deportation of Venezuelans
under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. In response, Trump called Judge Boasberg a
"radical left-wing lunatic" and demanded his removal. This request was rejected by
Chief Justice Roberts, who emphasized that impeachment is not an appropriate
response to disagreements with judicial decisions and stressed the importance of the
appeals process.
This situation highlights the tensions between the executive and judicial branches,
especially when the impartiality or integrity of the judicial system is questioned. The
confrontation has been seen as an institutional clash, with the Chief Justice openly
opposing the political pressures exerted by former President Trump, reaffirming the
importance of judicial independence.
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, "Roberts' recent remarks are not the first time
he has rebuked politicians for undermining the judiciary. In 2018, after Trump attacked
what he called an 'Obama judge' for ruling against him in a separate immigration case,
Roberts issued a statement defending the courts."
"We don’t have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,"
Roberts said at the time. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges
who make their best efforts to dispense fair justice to those who appear before them."
To this, Trump responded: "Sorry, Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do in fact have
‘Obama judges,’ and they have a very different point of view from the people
responsible for the safety of our country."
As The Wall Street Journal explains in one of its articles: "Threats of impeachment
against district judges over preliminary orders issued at the start of litigation are virtually
unheard of—and even less so when coming from the president. To remove a judge, the
House would have to approve articles of impeachment, and the Senate, after a trial,
would need to convict by a two-thirds vote. Although the likelihood of this happening is
low, Roberts and other judges have warned that the inflammatory rhetoric of political
leaders can lead to the intimidation of judges and even threats to their safety and that of
their families."
Meanwhile, the court of appeals has not made any decision regarding the removal of
Boasberg, and he continues to carry out his duties, such as requesting more information
from the government about recent deportation flights. The government continues to
evade this request, providing little information while vehemently insisting on Boasberg's
removal.
If you have any questions about how this could affect your immigration case, please
do not hesitate to contact us.
Major Victory for Employers, Universities, and Highly Skilled Foreign Workers
Rising immigration enforcement, policy changes, and growing uncertainty are discouraging many lawful permanent residents from pursuing the protection and stability that U.S. citizenship is meant to provide.
New federal rule leaves thousands of work-authorized immigrants without commercial driver’s licenses
Various recent media outlets confirm that a new rule by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), under the U.S. Department of Transportation, prevents immigrants with work authorization—including asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients—from obtaining or maintaining commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), affecting hundreds of thousands of drivers. Reports from outlets such as The Washington Post, The Guardian, and CalMatters indicate that the measure is already causing the loss of licenses and jobs, as well as potential impacts on the supply chain. Meanwhile, labor and legal organizations have filed lawsuits, such as Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA , arguing that the rule is illegal, discriminatory, and severely harms the livelihoods of thousands of families. The administration implemented a rule that prevents asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients from obtaining or renewing CDLs. Lawsuits say it will “destroy livelihoods” A transportation-focused publication confirms the language used by plaintiffs: Attorneys stated that the rule “threatens to destroy the livelihoods” of thousands of drivers. It explains that asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients are excluded. Real impact: loss of licenses and jobs A recent CalMatters report shows that this is already happening: Thousands of immigrant truck drivers have already lost their licenses in California. Many have been left unemployed and in legal uncertainty. It is estimated that up to 61,000 could lose their licenses in that state alone. Economic and industry effects Driving schools report a sharp decline in student enrollment due to the new rules. Companies and analysts warn that the measure reduces the workforce and may increase costs. Implementation of the rule (key detail) Legal and regulatory sources confirm: The rule went into effect on March 16, 2026. It only allows CDLs for certain visa types (H-2A, H-2B, E-2). Other work-authorized statuses no longer qualify. Recently, The Guardian published an article analyzing the impact of this measure on driving schools. Start CDL, a driving school founded by immigrants Asyl Kushnir and Gene Moik, is facing possible closure due to a sharp decline in student enrollment following new restrictions implemented during the administration of Donald Trump. Enrollment dropped from nearly 100 students per month to just 25–30, seriously affecting revenue despite high demand for drivers. According to its owners, the changes have created confusion and reduced access for immigrants with work permits—such as asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients—who previously saw trucking as a stable job opportunity. This serves as a small example of the different angles from which this new policy must be analyzed. In summary ✔️ The rule exists and is already in effect ✔️ It directly affects immigrants with work authorization ✔️ There are active lawsuits (such as the one you mentioned) ✔️ Media reports confirm real losses of jobs and licenses
Share On: