The Next Success - A Judicial Slap for the White House - Federal Court Speaks of “Terror” Against Migrants

U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes of the United States District Court for the Central District of California has accused the Trump administration, in unusually sharp terms, of breaking the law and engaging in intimidation. In a ruling issued in Riverside, Judge Sykes wrote that the executive branch was terrorizing migrants and deliberately disregarding court orders. Anyone reading the opinion quickly understands that this is not a minor legal dispute, but an open conflict between the administration and the judiciary. Sykes faulted the Department of Homeland Security for ignoring her own ruling from December. At that time, she held that the blanket, mandatory detention of many migrants violated federal law. Detainees, she ruled, must at minimum be informed that they may be eligible for bond, and they must be given access to a telephone within one hour so they can contact an attorney. Subsequent investigations revealed that this never occurred. Instead, the government continued its practice of systematically denying hearings and access to contact, leaving family members, attorneys, aid organizations and support teams waiting for six to ten hours, only to send them away without any hearing taking place.

In her new decision, Sykes also vacated a ruling from an immigration court in September on which the government had relied in order to continue its strict detention policy. The message is unmistakable: lower agencies cannot neutralize judicial orders through internal decisions. The judge went further. She drew a connection between migration policy and the deadly incidents in Minnesota in which Renée Good and Alex Pretti lost their lives. The violence, Sykes wrote, does not affect only non citizens. The executive has extended its force to its own citizens. Such language is rarely found in federal court decisions. It reflects an escalation.

The Department of Homeland Security pushed back, noting that the Supreme Court has repeatedly reversed lower courts on questions of mandatory detention. ICE, it said, complies with court rulings unless and until they are overturned by the nation’s highest court. In doing so, the administration is advancing a different interpretation of the law — and relying on time. Investigations show clearly, however, that tensions in the federal courts have intensified. Since Trump took office, more than 20,000 habeas corpus petitions have been filed by detainees seeking release. Judges have granted many of these petitions. Yet courts have repeatedly found that orders were not implemented or that required hearings did not take place. In Minnesota, U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on Wednesday held a government attorney in contempt of court after identity documents belonging to a migrant ordered released were not returned. In New Jersey, Judge Michael Farbiarz required the government to explain how it ensures that judicial directives are carried out on time. In twelve out of roughly 550 cases, deadlines for bond hearings had not been met. “Court orders must never be disregarded,” he wrote.

Under previous administrations, individuals without criminal records could generally request a hearing, provided they were not apprehended directly at the border. That practice was ended under Trump. Without access to bond hearings, many had only the path to federal court. The result is a flood of proceedings that is pushing the judiciary to its limits and at the same time making visible how deeply the executive and the courts now distrust one another. Sykes, nominated by President Joe Biden, had expanded her decision nationwide in November and again in December. The administration nevertheless continued its course. In her current reasoning, the judge emphasized that the denial of due process harms families, communities, and the fabric of the country. She also rejected the claim that the policy primarily removes serious criminals. The majority of those arrested do not fit that description.

With the most recent decision, there is hope that mandatory detention will finally be ended and that immigration judges will again grant regular bond hearings. Whether that happens under this administration is of course open. What is clear, however, is that the dispute concerns more than migration policy alone. It touches the fundamental question of how far a government may go when it seeks to enforce political objectives - and how effective judicial limits still are in times of massive executive power.

The decision from Riverside is therefore more than another episode in the ongoing dispute over deportations. It is a warning signal. When courts repeatedly find that their orders are being ignored, not only a policy is under scrutiny, but the functioning of the rule of law itself.

To be continued .....