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
don't hesitate to contact us.
According to sources such as Newbreak, several specific cases have emerged where a judge dismisses the case during the hearing, but ICE officers are waiting outside the courthouse to detain the individual as they leave. Newbreak.com recently reported that at least eight arrests of this kind have taken place in Memphis, with similar cases occurring in other parts of the country as well. One of the most recent known cases involved a 20-year-old Venezuelan student who was arrested by ICE officers after leaving a courtroom in New York. The young man, named Dylan, was in the process of applying for asylum. He attended the hearing with his mother, without a lawyer, believing it was a routine appearance that would have no consequences. In another instance, four asylum seekers were arrested by ICE on May 27, 2025, at the San Francisco Immigration Court while attending hearings to present their asylum applications. According to an article published by La Nación, a New York judge reported that ICE agents have been arresting undocumented immigrants inside state courthouses, despite existing laws that prohibit such practices. These arrests have raised serious concerns among civil rights advocates and immigrant communities, particularly in light of the stricter immigration policies implemented since Donald Trump returned to the presidency in January 2025. Importantly, in most of these cases, the individuals arrested attended their hearings without legal representation. This likely contributes to the effectiveness of these arrests, as ICE may be taking advantage of the detainees’ lack of legal knowledge. While having an attorney present does not guarantee protection from arrest, it is considered a significant advantage. Legal representation can help build a stronger case and present more compelling legal arguments to prevent arbitrary detention. At Pikes Peak Immigration, we continue to fight for the rights of our immigrant communities. If you need legal guidance, don’t hesitate to contact us at 719-602-4477.
On April 15, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice fired immigration attorney Erez Reuveni following his handling of the case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Reuveni had acknowledged during a court hearing that the deportation was an "administrative error" and expressed frustration over the government's failure to provide clear answers on how to reverse the situation. According to CNN, “Reuveni was initially placed on administrative leave days after expressing frustration over the government's inability to provide answers to a judge’s questions in the case. In court, he said of the government’s position: ‘Our only arguments are jurisdictional... He should not have been sent to El Salvador.’” His dismissal was interpreted as a consequence of failing to fully support the administration’s official position. Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the decision, stating that lawyers must “zealously” advocate for the administration’s policies or face consequences. Presidential advisor Stephen Miller downplayed the error, blaming it on a poorly worded line written by the attorney. However, Reuveni’s case is not an isolated incident. According to NBC Boston, “The U.S. Department of Justice has fired more than two dozen employees, most of whom worked in immigration courts... An immigration judge assigned to Massachusetts, who was fired on Friday, and the union representing immigration judges nationwide are speaking out about the dismissals, which come as President Donald Trump moves swiftly to reduce the federal workforce.” As for Kilmar Abrego, “a federal judge ordered his return to the U.S., but the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the order. The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, refused to facilitate his return, labeling him a ‘terrorist’ and claiming he would not ‘traffic a terrorist back into the U.S.,’” El Salvador News recently reported. Despite intimidation and increasingly harsh immigration policies, at Pikes Peak Immigration, we continue to defend immigrants and pursue every solution to keep families together.
According to documents reviewed by The Washington Post , the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently authorized access for approximately six advisors from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to the ECAS system—a highly confidential database that contains detailed information on millions of immigrants, including names, addresses, medical histories, and court testimonies. This system, typically restricted to attorneys and federal investigators, holds records of all interactions—both legal and undocumented—between immigrants and the U.S. government dating back to the 1990s. Among the DOGE advisors granted access are individuals connected to Elon Musk, including employees from his private equity firm. One of them, Marko Elez, has previously been linked to racist social media posts. This access was granted despite a federal judge in Maryland issuing a temporary restraining order in February of this year against the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). In her opinion, the judge stated that the plaintiffs—which include members of several major labor unions—demonstrated that the Department of Education and the OPM "likely violated the Privacy Act by disclosing personal information to DOGE affiliates without consent," as reported by Telemundo40 a few months ago. The access is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration and DOGE to collect data from multiple federal agencies—including Medicare, the IRS, the SSA, and HUD—with the aim of ramping up deportations and excluding immigrants from social benefits. Some tactics reportedly include declaring living immigrants as deceased to pressure them into leaving the country. As The Washington Post reported after investigating the matter, "DOGE has frequently sought data originally provided for specific purposes—such as tax filing or housing assistance. The team's methods have alarmed legal and privacy experts, as well as federal employees, who note that the data DOGE is analyzing is typically accessible only to a select group of highly trained personnel." Legal and privacy experts have raised serious concerns over the lack of oversight and the risks posed by granting access to such sensitive data—especially for immigrants who have followed legal immigration procedures. If you are an immigrant or know someone at risk of deportation, contact us for assistance at 719-602-4477.
Share On: