Immigration

Trump campaigned for aggressive immigration enforcement, and the administration succeeded with its enforcement operations. However, it has faced consistent legal challenges to its immigration policies, and in recent weeks, the administration has faced new legal pushback that could threaten aggressive immigration enforcement.

A judge on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an injunction last month blocking federal immigration officers from relying on apparent race, language spoken, location, or job as sole reasons to inquire about a person’s immigration status. The DOJ has alleged that the restrictions would hamper the type of immigration raids it can conduct in Southern California.

A federal appeals court largely upheld the injunction late Friday, continuing restrictions on federal immigration officers in a jurisdiction where it has performed various operations this year and met fiery backlash.

The restrictions, issued by the court in the first half of July, may have reduced immigration authorities’ arrests last month. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has touted arrest and removal figures since Trump returned to office, but arrests in July fell slightly compared to June as immigration enforcement faces legal challenges in courts.

Another part of Trump’s immigration agenda, which has recently received pushback from a federal court, deals with his policy closer to the border. A federal appeals court late Friday blocked the president’s orders implementing significant restrictions on asylum claims at the southern border, a key part of Trump’s immigration and border security policy.

The order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit halts the administration’s policy, which allowed for the quick deportation of illegal immigrants without giving a chance to claim asylum, something the administration claimed was abused.

The Trump administration has also faced various lawsuits over its efforts to end Temporary Protected Status for migrants from multiple countries, with several judges offering blistering opinions highlighting the animosity between the administration and some federal courts. In a Thursday order from a federal district court blocking the revocation of TPS for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua, Judge Trina Thompson accused the Trump administration of “racial animus” with officials’ comments on criminal migrants.

Judiciary

The administration has also faced friction with its bids to keep its preferred U.S. attorneys in office, as Senate Democrats have stalled the confirmation of nominees and caused some interim prosecutors to be timed out.

In New Jersey last month, the president’s preferred pick for U.S. attorney, Alina Habba, had yet to be confirmed by the Senate. She was nearing the end of her 120-day tenure as interim U.S. attorney, meaning a panel of district judges could choose to retain or replace her. The panel of judges selected Habba’s top deputy, Desiree Grace, to lead the office, seemingly ending Habba’s tenure. The Justice Department fought the selection and used a loophole to keep Habba in the top position instead of acting as a U.S. attorney.

A similar battle between the district judges and the Trump administration over the U.S. attorney for a federal district was averted when the interim U.S. attorneys for Nevada and the Central District of California, Sigal Chattah and Bill Essayli, respectively, were also designated as acting U.S. attorneys.

Another friction between the judiciary and the Trump administration has become apparent in the Justice Department’s prosecution of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. She faces obstruction charges over allegedly helping an illegal immigrant evade arrest by federal immigration officers.

Dugan has maintained she had judicial immunity and has attempted to claim the DOJ is going after her for “doing her job.” The indicted judge has filed a motion to dismiss, which has yet to be ruled on by a federal district court judge.

Executive branch restructuring

One of the primary objectives of the Trump administration has been restructuring the executive branch through layoffs and firing independent agency heads, something which has also slowed various lawsuits.

The Supreme Court has permitted mass layoffs across various federal agencies while a lawsuit continues in a federal district court in California. Sweeping reductions at the Education Department were also allowed as the lawsuit continues.

Another key part of the Trump administration’s executive branch restructuring has been firing various Democrat-appointed independent agency heads, which has prompted lawsuits and injunctions from multiple courts.

Federal district courts blocked the administration’s attempt to axe Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and two fired Democrat-appointed members of the National Credit Union Administration late last month. A higher court has stayed both district court orders pending appeal.

SUPREME COURT WILL EXAMINE RACIAL REDISTRICTING LAW AS OTHER STATES CONSIDER NEW MAPS

The Supreme Court has allowed the firings of three Democrat-appointed members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, along with two Democrat-appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, to proceed pending litigation in lower courts.

The Trump administration continues to face pushback in federal courts as it pursues its agenda, many of which are poised to make their way to the Supreme Court for final review. Other matters that could make their way before the justices include Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship and the president’s sweeping tariffs.