{"id":2617110,"date":"2026-06-22T07:55:02","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T11:55:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/district-judges-weighing-trump-policies-face-slap-downs-by-appeals-courts\/"},"modified":"2026-06-22T08:01:34","modified_gmt":"2026-06-22T12:01:34","slug":"district-judges-weighing-trump-policies-face-slap-downs-by-appeals-courts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/district-judges-weighing-trump-policies-face-slap-downs-by-appeals-courts\/","title":{"rendered":"District judges weighing Trump policies face slap downs by appeals courts"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fdistrict-judges-weighing-trump-policies-face-slap-downs-by-appeals-courts%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2617110&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>Federal district court judges reviewing President Donald Trump&#8217;s immigration policies and other controversial measures are increasingly facing checks from appeal courts,raising concerns about whether some judges pursue partisan goals rather than strictly applying the law. This has resulted in a pattern where lower courts block administrative actions, higher courts narrow or halt those orders, and district judges revisit the same policies through new legal routes, especially in immigration cases. for instance, judges clash over how much authority courts have to review detention decisions made by the Trump governance, which Congress largely shielded from judicial review.<\/p>\n<p>Notable examples include Chief Judge James Boasberg, who was ordered to end a contempt inquiry related to deportation flights, and U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who repeatedly tried to block the administration\u2019s deportation policies after the Supreme Court reversed his rulings. Similar patterns emerge in other cases, such as a transgender prisoner treatment policy and debates over immigration detention rights.These ongoing disputes exemplify a \u201clegal Whack-A-Mole,\u201d where courts continually narrow or reinterpret orders to challenge administrative actions.<\/p>\n<p>A major point of contention revolves around immigration detention policies,where a circuit split is emerging-some courts support the administration\u2019s view that certain detained immigrants must be held without bond,while others oppose it,potentially setting the stage for Supreme Court review. Former <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >immigration judges offer differing perspectives<\/a>: some see the legal battles as political resistance, while others argue the administration is strictly enforcing laws Congress enacted.<\/p>\n<p>The core issue is whether district judges are overstepping their authority by intervening in immigration matters Congress intended to keep out of judicial review. Critics suggest that courts are increasingly inserting themselves into national immigration enforcement, which traditionally has been governed by congressional law. With the Supreme Court already displaying impatience towards nationwide injunctions and judicial overreach, these disputes are likely to reach the Supreme Court soon, raising profound questions about judicial limits and administrative law in immigration policy.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<article class=\"fn-body\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Federal district court judges reviewing President <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/donald-trump\/\">Donald Trump<\/a>\u2019s immigration agenda and other contested policies are increasingly being checked by appeals courts, raising questions as to whether some members of the federal judiciary are implementing the law or seeking partisan ends.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The result has created a pattern in which lower courts block administration actions, higher courts narrow or halt those orders, and <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/judges\/\">district judges<\/a> then revisit the same policies through new procedural routes. The trend has become especially pronounced in immigration cases, where judges are clashing over how much power federal courts have to second-guess <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/trump-administration\/\">Trump administration<\/a> detention decisions that the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/department-of-justice\/\">Justice Department<\/a> says Congress placed largely beyond district court review.<\/p>\n<section class=\"explore-more-section\" id=\"wex-recommended-widget\">\n<div class=\"magazine-container single\">\n<h1 class=\"magazine-title mt-2\">Recommended Stories<\/h1>\n<p>             <i class=\"fa-solid fa-play icon\"><\/i>         <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-grid\">\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4618006\/pirro-serious-charges-vandalism-reflecting-pool-algae\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Pirro floats \u2018serious charges\u2019 for vandals fostering algal blooms in Reflecting Pool<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4616938\/doj-not-sign-declaration-anti-weaponization-fund\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>DOJ won\u2019t sign declaration over <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/doj-wont-sign-declaration-over-canceled-anti-weaponization-fund\/\" title=\"DOJ won&#039;t sign declaration over canceled anti-weaponization fund\">canceled anti-weaponization fund<\/a>: \u2018Demands are unnecessary\u2019<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4617021\/judge-allow-doj-release-biden-audio-heritage-foundation\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Judge allows DOJ to release Biden interview audio to Heritage Foundation<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The clearest rebuke came in April, when Chief Judge James Boasberg, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4528250\/boasberg-contempt-inquiry-deportations-blocked\/\">to end a criminal contempt inquiry<\/a> into DOJ officials over deportation flights carried out under the Alien Enemies Act last March.<\/p>\n<div class=\"wex-inarticle-ad wex-inarticle-ad-art-dsk-inart-1\">\n<div class=\"wex-ad-wrap\" style=\"min-height:5px;\"><span class=\"wex-ad-label\" style=\"display:none;\">Advertisement<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-3182201-15\" data-wex-ad=\"art-dsk-inart-1\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\">FILE \u2013 U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, stands for a portrait at E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, March 16, 2023. (Carolyn Van Houten\/The Washington Post via AP, File)<\/p>\n<p>&#8221; data-image-caption=&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>FILE \u2013 U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, stands for a portrait at E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, March 16, 2023. (Carolyn Van Houten\/The Washington Post via AP, File)<\/p>\n<p>&#8221; data-large-file=&#8221;https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/AP25079589477125.webp?w=696&#8243; &#8220;https:><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, stands for a portrait at E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, March 16, 2023. (Carolyn Van Houten\/The Washington Post via AP, File)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Boasberg had pursued the inquiry after the administration deported alleged <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/venezuela\/\">Venezuelan<\/a> gang members to <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/el-salvador\/\">El Salvador<\/a> despite his temporary restraining order. But the D.C. Circuit issued a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary order used to rein in a lower court, finding that Boasberg\u2019s contempt probe could not continue.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That ruling followed a previous round of <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/3918652\/appeals-court-delays-james-boasberg-contempt-inquiry-orders-briefing-court-authority\/\">appellate intervention against Boasberg in December<\/a>, and became a prime example for Trump officials and allies who say district judges are not merely ruling against the administration but attempting to influence outcomes even after higher courts have stepped in.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"h-judge-repeatedly-tried-to-stop-third-country-deportations\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Judge repeatedly tried to stop third-country deportations<\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Another notable example involves U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, an appointee of former President <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?client=safari&#038;rls=en&#038;q=Joe+biden+site%3Awashingtonexaminer.com&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;oe=UTF-8\">Joe Biden<\/a> in Boston, who blocked the administration\u2019s third-country deportation policy, which allows illegal immigrants to be removed to countries other than their home nations.<\/p>\n<div class=\"wex-inarticle-ad wex-inarticle-ad-art-dsk-inart-2\">\n<div class=\"wex-ad-wrap\" style=\"min-height:5px;\"><span class=\"wex-ad-label\" style=\"display:none;\">Advertisement<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-3182201-16\" data-wex-ad=\"art-dsk-inart-2\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\">Supreme Court<\/a> reversed his decision and allowed the policy to resume last summer, Murphy <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4471956\/biden-judge-strikes-third-country-deportation-high-court-allowed\/\">issued additional orders governing illegal immigrants<\/a> in February who had been sent through Djibouti while facing possible removal to South Sudan, prompting White House officials to accuse him of refusing to obey the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When Murphy still tried to enforce his other order that built off the one the Supreme Court lifted \u2014 this one blocking the deportation of eight criminal illegal immigrants to\u00a0South Sudan \u2014 the court <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/3462911\/supreme-court-backs-trump-bid-to-deport-criminals-to-south-sudan\/\">rebuked him<\/a> again in a 7-2 unsigned order. Justice <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/elena-kagan\/\">Elena Kagan<\/a> was the lone justice who opposed the initial stay order but switched to join the majority in blocking enforcement of Murphy\u2019s second order, saying she did \u201cnot see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"h-the-pattern-repeats-in-transgender-prison-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The pattern repeats in transgender prison case<\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The same dynamic surfaced in a different policy dispute this week in Washington, D.C., where U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4613444\/judge-halts-trump-prison-policy-ended-transgender-inmate-hormone-treatments\/\">issued a new injunction<\/a> against the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/bureau-of-prisons\/\">Bureau of Prisons<\/a>\u2019s policy limiting hormone treatments for <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/transgender\/\">transgender<\/a>-identifying inmates only hours after the D.C. Circuit stayed one of his earlier orders.<\/p>\n<div class=\"wex-inarticle-ad wex-inarticle-ad-art-dsk-inart-3\">\n<div class=\"wex-ad-wrap\" style=\"min-height:5px;\"><span class=\"wex-ad-label\" style=\"display:none;\">Advertisement<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-3182201-17\" data-wex-ad=\"art-dsk-inart-3\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\">(Getty Images)<\/p>\n<p>&#8221; data-large-file=&#8221;https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/\/2026\/06\/localimages\/iStock-1162535990-e1781808976947.jpg?w=696&#8243; &#8220;https:><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">(Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Lamberth concluded the BOP policy could still be blocked under the Administrative Procedure Act, even as the appeals court found the executive order that formed the basis of that policy was likely to survive review.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This pernicious pattern has become a form of legal Whack-A-Mole. An appeals court narrows one injunction, only for a district judge to issue a new order based on a different statute, record, or legal theory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But the most consequential front may be immigration detention, where a fast-moving circuit split is putting Trump\u2019s no-bond policy on a likely path to the Supreme Court after more than 13,000 instances in which federal judges concluded that Immigration and Customs Enforcement illegally detained illegal immigrants.<\/p>\n<div class=\"wex-inarticle-ad wex-inarticle-ad-art-dsk-inart-4\">\n<div class=\"wex-ad-wrap\" style=\"min-height:5px;\"><span class=\"wex-ad-label\" style=\"display:none;\">Advertisement<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-3182201-25\" data-wex-ad=\"art-dsk-inart-4\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2 id=\"h-two-former-immigration-judges-weigh-in-on-the-problems-beneath-the-surface\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Two former immigration judges weigh in on the problems beneath the surface<\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute stems from a July 2025 ICE memo and a September 2025 Board of Immigration Appeals ruling known as <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/eoir\/media\/1413311\/dl?inline\">\u201cMatter of Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado,\u201d<\/a> which concluded that illegal immigrants who entered the country without being formally admitted are designated as \u201capplicants for admission\u201d under federal law, regardless of when they entered the country.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That distinction matters because the administration says those immigrants qualify for mandatory detention under <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1225&#038;num=0&#038;edition=prelim\">Section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act<\/a>, rather than discretionary detention under <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/8\/1226\">Section 1226<\/a>, which historically allowed immigration judges to consider bond.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Immigration activists contend the shifts under this administration have effectively removed bond eligibility for many illegal immigrants arrested inside the country, including some who had lived in the United States for years.<\/p>\n<div class=\"wex-inarticle-ad wex-inarticle-ad-art-dsk-inart-5\">\n<div class=\"wex-ad-wrap\" style=\"min-height:5px;\"><span class=\"wex-ad-label\" style=\"display:none;\">Advertisement<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-3182201-26\" data-wex-ad=\"art-dsk-inart-5\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Former immigration judge Lawrence Burman, who retired in December, argued the nationwide battle over immigration detention is not a simple case of anti-Trump judges resisting enforcement, unlike several lawsuits brought in Washington, D.C., where a federal judge quickly ties the hands of the administration before weighing the merits of the case.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cThis is not just a case of things like the reflecting pool, where the judge issues an injunction for no good reason, just because they don\u2019t like Trump,\u201d Burman told the <em>Washington Examiner<\/em>. \u201cThis is a serious issue.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Burman said the administration is trying to treat long-term illegal immigrants as though they had just arrived at the border, even though immigration law historically distinguished between \u201cexclusion proceedings\u201d for new arrivals and deportation proceedings for people already inside the country.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cWhat the government is trying to do is make it impossible for people to get bonds in almost every situation where you\u2019re an alien,\u201d Burman said. He added that district judges \u201care almost all pushing back on it really hard, and not just the crazy ones.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Despite Burman\u2019s contention, there are other former immigration judges who see the issue in an entirely different light. They say the Trump administration is enforcing laws that have been on the books for decades.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Art Arthur, a former immigration judge and fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, offered a measured disagreement, saying the administration is enforcing a statutory structure Congress created in 1996, but one that prior administrations merely declined to apply fully.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"h-if-you-don-t-like-the-rules-take-it-up-with-congress\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">If you don\u2019t like the rules, take it up with Congress<\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Before 1996, Arthur said, enforcement of immigration law turned on whether an immigrant had \u201centered\u201d the country. If someone crossed illegally and made it into the interior, that person could often seek bond. But the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/illegal_immigration_reform_and_immigration_responsibility_act\">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act<\/a> of 1996 replaced that framework with a distinction between immigrants who had been legally \u201cadmitted\u201d and those who had not.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cCongress makes the rules,\u201d Arthur told the <em>Washington Examiner<\/em>. \u201cIf Congress has said they\u2019re supposed to be detained, they\u2019re supposed to be detained.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Arthur said the Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations all stopped short of applying the 1996 law to its full extent, in part because of detention capacity limitations and policy preferences. He argued the Trump administration, especially after the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/laken-riley\/\">Laken Riley Act<\/a> and the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3045084\/supreme-court-shreds-chevron-doctrine-in-blow-to-agency-powers\/\">Supreme Court\u2019s overturning of <em>Chevron<\/em><\/a>, is forcing courts to confront the text Congress enacted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Most importantly, limiting bond options for detainees did not arise out of a vacuum, nor did it originate in Washington under Trump. Rather, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/national\/2026\/05\/25\/immigration-bond-policy-trump-washington-judges\/50df7584-58b7-11f1-8a9d-afb1148204e1_story.html\">it actually gained steam three years ago<\/a> in Tacoma, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/washington\/\">Washington<\/a>, where four immigration judges at the Northwest ICE Processing Center concluded in 2023 that Congress never gave them authority to grant bond to certain immigrants who entered illegally. <\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One of them, Charles Neil Floyd, later became the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-muscles-out-chicago-prosecutor-hot-on-the-heels-of-powerful-dems\/\" title=\"Biden Muscles Out Chicago Prosecutor Hot on the Heels of Powerful Dems\">top federal prosecutor<\/a> in Seattle during Trump\u2019s second term and is <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/usao-wdwa\/meet-us-attorney\">currently serving<\/a> as the first assistant U.S. attorney in Washington.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That regional practice drew little national attention until the Trump administration adopted a similar theory nationwide when the president returned to office.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.brookings.edu\/articles\/the-administration-has-detained-400000-immigrants-what-do-we-know-about-their-children\/\">more than 400,000 interior arrests<\/a> of illegal immigrants and over 60,000 currently in detention, appeals courts are now more divided than ever. The 5th Circuit sided with the administration in February in <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ca5.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/pub\/25\/25-20496-CV0.pdf\">Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi<\/a><\/em>, holding that the statutory text supports mandatory detention for immigrants who entered without inspection. The 8th Circuit reached a similar conclusion the following month.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But the 2nd Circuit in April became the first appellate court to reject the administration\u2019s position, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov\/decisions\/OPN\/25-3141_complete_opn.pdf\">warning it could create<\/a> \u201cthe broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation\u2019s history.\u201d The 11th Circuit followed in May, and days later the 6th Circuit joined them, preserving bond hearings for at least some detainees arrested inside the country.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The growing divide has created a 3-2 circuit split against the administration and is widely viewed as placing the issue on a fast track to Supreme Court review.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">District judges have also begun examining the bond hearings that do occur, reviewing whether immigration judges considered evidence, applied the correct burden of proof, or treated federal court orders as meaningful rather than perfunctory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">U.S. District Judge Kyle Dudek, a Trump appointee in Florida, on June 11 accused administration lawyers of a <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.flmd.460010\/gov.uscourts.flmd.460010.13.0.pdf\">\u201cmasterclass in litigation cynicism\u201d<\/a> after an immigration judge failed to hold a court-ordered bond hearing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton, a George W. Bush appointee in New Jersey, ordered a new hearing before a different immigration judge after finding that evidence had not been considered.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Notably, several of the sharpest criticisms of immigration detention practices have come from Republican-appointed judges, underscoring that the dispute has not broken neatly along partisan lines.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Still, Arthur argued district courts are increasingly inserting themselves into immigration decisions that Congress largely shielded from their review.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cThere\u2019s a reason that Congress cut district courts out of review of immigration issues,\u201d Arthur said. \u201cWith due respect to anybody who\u2019s been a district court judge, they don\u2019t have any expertise in the area.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/immigration\/\">NEARLY 900,000 DEPORTED BY ICE UNDER TRUMP AS FLIGHTS SOARED IN MAY TO NEW HIGH<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court has already <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3455997\/supreme-court-nationwide-injunctions-trump-birthright-citizenship-case\/\">shown impatience with nationwide injunctions<\/a> and district court control over national policy during the second Trump administration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ultimately, the detention feud happening in courts across the nation presents a more difficult question of whether district judges are improperly acting as immigration appeals courts, or if they are legitimately using habeas corpus to police unlawful confinement, a matter that will surely require review by the nine justices sooner rather than later.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Courts clash over Trump policies, raising legal and partisan concerns<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2617111,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/iStock-2231487972-e1781196887486.jpg?w=696","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[52260,50442,39490,46170],"class_list":["post-2617110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-appeals-courts","tag-judges-2","tag-legal-rulings","tag-trump-policies"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/iStock-2231487972-e1781196887486.jpg?w=696","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2617110","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2617110"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2617110\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2617123,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2617110\/revisions\/2617123"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2617111"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2617110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2617110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2617110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}