Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court rules TPS determinations largely exempt from judicial review — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision holding that the Department of Homeland Security Secretary's Temporary Protected Status (TPS) determinations and processes are generally not subject to judicial review, except for constitutional claims. The ruling affects approximately 1.3 million immigrants, with immediate consequences for over 300,000 Haitian and several thousand Syrian TPS holders who are expected to lose protections and work authorization. Justice Kagan's dissent warned the decision enables arbitrary termination without evaluation of country conditions.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court approves asylum metering policy at US-Mexico border — The US Supreme Court ruled to approve the "metering" asylum policy at the US-Mexico border, a system previously rescinded that controlled the number of people processed at legal ports of entry. Under metering, US officials turned back asylum seekers before they reached US soil, forcing them to wait indefinitely in dangerous Mexican border towns. The ruling potentially opens the door for re-implementation regardless of the current administration's immigration stance.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court temporarily blocks re-detention of Mahmoud Khalil — The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay blocking the re-detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a 31-year-old Palestinian-American activist and US green card holder, pending supreme court review. Khalil was detained by ICE in March 2025 for 104 days; the government argued his pro-Palestinian activism constituted a threat to US foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited concerns about antisemitism and Jewish student safety. The temporary block gives Khalil reprieve as his legal team prepares a supreme court petition.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge dismisses criminal indictment against Kilmar Ábrego García, finding presumptive vindictiveness — US District Judge Waverly David Crenshaw Jr. dismissed a criminal indictment against Kilmar Ábrego García on May 23, 2026, finding that the Trump administration would not have prosecuted him had he not challenged his deportation to El Salvador. The judge determined there was sufficient evidence of "presumptive vindictiveness" based on the timing of the indictment, statements by acting attorney general Todd Blanche, and sustained DOJ oversight. Ábrego had been deported to a Salvadoran anti-terrorism prison in March 2025 despite a prior court order, then brought back to the US only after being charged with human smuggling related to a 2022 traffic stop.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders release of Venezuelan migrant after seven months of ICE detention — Joswar Torres, a 29-year-old Venezuelan with a pending asylum application and humanitarian parole status, was detained by ICE in June 2025 following a routine DHS check-in in Spokane, Washington. After nearly 2,000 people protested his detention and 30 were arrested, U.S. District Judge James Robart ruled that DHS violated Torres's Fifth Amendment due process rights by failing to consider his individualized circumstances before detaining him. Torres was released after seven months in custody.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court unanimously ordered government to facilitate Ábrego García's return — The Supreme Court unanimously ordered the federal government to "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Ábrego García to the United States after his wrongful deportation to El Salvador. The administration interpreted "facilitate" narrowly, claiming it only required allowing him entry if he arrived on his own, not requiring the government to seek his release from the torture prison.
• U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered government to return Kilmar Ábrego García from El Salvador — U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the federal government to bring Kilmar Ábrego García back to the United States after the administration had wrongfully deported him to El Salvador's CECOT terrorist prison in March 2025, where he was beaten and tortured. Ábrego García, a Salvadoran national who fled gang threats in 2011 at age 16, had been granted protection from removal by a judge in 2019 despite being denied asylum. The government appealed; the Supreme Court unanimously ordered it to "facilitate" Ábrego García's return.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge issues temporary restraining order blocking ICE from detaining Kilmar Ábrego García — On Friday morning, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials from detaining Kilmar Ábrego García, hours before he was scheduled to appear at an ICE field office in Baltimore. The judge ruled that Ábrego cannot be re-detained until the court conducts a hearing on the motion for the temporary restraining order, citing the merits of his case and the need for orderly administration of justice. Ábrego, who had been released from a Pennsylvania immigration detention facility on Thursday, spoke to supporters after the ruling.
• Judge Xinis barred government from arresting Ábrego García pending hearing — On Friday, December 13, Judge Paula Xinis granted the request of Kilmar Ábrego García's lawyers to bar the government from arresting him again until she hears from both parties.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge issues temporary restraining order on riot control weapons in Chicago — On an unspecified date before 13 October, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a temporary restraining order restricting federal agents from using riot control weapons (tear gas, rubber bullets, etc.) against journalists, protesters, and religious practitioners in Chicago unless there is probable cause that individuals have committed a crime. The order responds to documented use of such weapons against veterans and other demonstrators during ICE protests.
• Federal judge ordered ICE to wear body cameras in Chicago — A federal judge ordered immigration officers to wear body cameras while conducting operations in the Chicago area, saying she was a "little startled" by footage of agents using tear gas and other tactics as part of Trump's immigration crackdown in the city and had concerns about her previous order preventing agents from using certain riot control techniques against journalists and protesters.
• Federal court orders ICE agents in Illinois to wear body cameras during immigration operations — A federal court issued an order on October 17 requiring federal ICE agents operating in Illinois to wear body cameras during immigration enforcement operations. The ruling followed multiple documented incidents in which federal agents deployed pepper balls, smoke grenades, and teargas against protesters and local police outside the Broadview detention center. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker praised the decision, stating that federal agents had "clearly lied" about their conduct and that the body camera requirement was a proper judicial response to unjustified use of chemical agents against protesters.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Chicago Headline Club v. Noem (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-12173 — Judge Ellis issued a modification to her previous Temporary Restraining Order, further enjoining federal agents' use of force in immigration enforcement operations in the Northern District of Illinois. The modification adds a requirement that all such federal agents wear active body cameras while engaged in enforcement activity, unless exempt under CBP, ICE, or DHS policy. The modified TRO came a day after Ellis reportedly expressed during a hearing that she was “startled” by “images in the paper” showing federal agents deploying tear gas against protestors without warning and had “serious concerns that my order is being followed.”
• Federal judge orders ICE to wear body cameras in Chicago area after tear gas violations — US District Judge Sara Ellis ordered federal immigration officers in the Chicago area to wear body cameras after they repeatedly deployed pepper balls, smoke grenades, and tear gas against protesters and local police in apparent violation of her prior ruling banning riot-control techniques without warning. The order follows escalating enforcement actions by ICE and other federal agencies as part of the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign, with documented incidents including tear gas deployed near schoolchildren, an attorney shoved to the ground, and a 19-year-old citizen pinned without clear cause.

Supporting reports

• Appeals court judges stay closure order for Florida's "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention facility — Two Trump-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Miami District Judge Kathleen Williams's preliminary injunction ordering closure of "Alligator Alcatraz," a 3,000-capacity immigration detention camp in the Florida Everglades. Williams had ruled the facility's hasty construction breached federal environmental laws. The appeals panel found 2-1 that because Florida initially funded construction with state money, no environmental impact study was required. The stay allowed the facility to resume operations and rapidly refill with detainees after a brief shutdown period in late August.
• Appeals court judge stays closure of "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention facility — Barbara Lagoa, a judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, authored a 2-1 majority ruling in September 2025 that stayed (paused) a Miami district judge's order to close "Alligator Alcatraz," a state-run detention camp for undocumented migrants in the Florida Everglades. The ruling reversed the lower court's finding that the DeSantis administration must comply with federal environmental regulations. The facility, criticized for harsh conditions, remains operational. Lagoa's husband, Paul Huck, is a senior attorney at a law firm that has received over $10 million in state contracts from the DeSantis administration, raising conflict-of-interest concerns.
• Eleventh Circuit stays federal judge's order to close "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention facility — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit voted 2–1 on September 4, 2025, to stay (suspend) a federal district judge's order requiring closure of the "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention center in Florida's Everglades within 60 days. The stay allows construction and operation to continue while Florida's appeal proceeds. The facility, built by Florida at a cost of approximately $250 million and operated on behalf of ICE, has faced criticism for harsh conditions, abuse allegations, denial of due process, and environmental damage.

Supporting reports

• White House and DC agree to scale back police takeover — Following judicial pressure, the Trump administration and DC officials reached an agreement Friday evening to scale back the federal takeover. Under the revised arrangement, Chief Pamela Smith would retain control of the Metropolitan Police Department, with Terry Cole designated as Attorney General Bondi's "designee" for directing specific services. The agreement still permitted the administration to use MPD officers for federal immigration enforcement purposes and in emergencies, contrary to DC's sanctuary city policies.

Supporting reports

• Federal court rules Trump's asylum ban proclamation unlawful — US District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that President Trump's proclamation declaring an "invasion" at the US-Mexico border and suspending asylum processing exceeded presidential authority and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and Constitution. Trump had signed the proclamation on inauguration day, directing officials to "repel, repatriate, or remove" migrants. Moss found the president lacks authority to unilaterally replace Congress's immigration statutes with an alternative system. The Trump administration has 14 days to seek emergency relief from the federal appeals court; if upheld, the ruling would require the Department of Homeland Security to resume processing asylum claims at the southern border.

Supporting reports

• Republicans attempt to pass significant budget bill — Republicans in Congress attempted to advance a budget measure dubbed “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” which aimed to extend Trump’s tax cuts at a projected cost of $4.6 trillion over ten years while raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The bill faced opposition and ultimately failed to advance out of the House Budget Committee.
• House Budget Committee passes bill in late-night session — The House Budget Committee passed a budget bill after a late-night session, with some members who previously voted 'No' changing their votes to 'Present.' The bill is set to face further scrutiny in the Rules Committee.
• Republicans criticized for scheduling votes at odd hours — Several Democratic representatives criticized Republicans for scheduling votes on significant legislation during late-night hours, suggesting a lack of transparency and public engagement in the legislative process.
• House Committee Advances Trump’s Tax Cut Bill — On May 18, 2025, a key House committee passed a tax cut and border security package, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, after reaching an agreement with far-right Republicans who had previously stalled its progress. The bill, which aims to extend tax breaks from Trump's first term and increase spending on border security, faces challenges in the full House due to potential opposition from moderates concerned about cuts to climate incentives and healthcare programs. The bill's passage is crucial for Republicans, who need to unite their party to pass it before the Memorial Day deadline.
• House Budget Committee Passes Controversial Bill — The House Budget Committee passed a bill referred to as the “Big, Beautiful Bill” on a party-line vote, with 17 Republicans in favor and 16 Democrats against. The bill includes cuts to Medicaid and extends tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will significantly increase the federal deficit. House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated minor modifications would be made, while critics argue the bill is being rushed through Congress without adequate scrutiny.
• House Republicans schedule procedural vote on Trump's bill — House Republicans have scheduled a procedural vote for 1am on Wednesday to advance President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which aims to enact his taxation and immigration priorities. The bill includes making permanent or extending tax cuts, ending taxation of tips and overtime, funding a border wall, and mass deportations. It proposes slashing federal safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP to offset costs, which has caused division among Republicans. The bill's passage is crucial for Trump, but it faces opposition from some lawmakers concerned about its impact on Medicaid and the SALT deduction.
• House Rules Committee to Consider Omnibus Bill — The House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet on May 21, 2025, to discuss a 1,116-page omnibus bill proposed by Republicans that aims to implement significant parts of former President Trump's agenda, including cuts to Medicaid and increased logging on public lands. The bill is being advanced through a budget reconciliation process, which allows it to pass with only Republican votes in the Senate. However, there is notable division among Republicans regarding the proposed Medicaid cuts, which are unpopular among constituents.
• House passes Budget Reconciliation Bill — The House of Representatives passed the Budget Reconciliation Bill by a narrow margin of 215-214, with two Republicans voting against it and one voting present. The bill's passage is significant as it will now move to the Senate, where Republican opposition is anticipated.
• Congressional Republicans pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — Congressional Republicans narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a 215-214 vote. The bill aims to permanently extend tax cuts from Trump's first term and introduce new deductions for working-class families, but these benefits will expire in 2028. The bill also includes cuts to social safety net programs, potentially affecting millions of poor and disabled Americans. The legislation is expected to add $3.4 trillion to the deficit by 2034. It now moves to the US Senate for further consideration under the budget reconciliation procedure, which limits Democratic influence.
• House Passes Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act — The House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" act, which enacts President Donald Trump's taxation and spending priorities. The bill includes making permanent the tax cuts from Trump's first term, increasing the standard deduction, and introducing new tax write-offs. It also allocates significant funds for mass deportations and border wall construction, imposes new fees on immigrants seeking asylum, and restricts federal courts from enforcing certain contempt citations. Additionally, it cuts funding for Medicaid and SNAP, phases out green energy incentives, and raises the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The bill now awaits consideration in the Senate.
• House Passes Trump's Tax Bill — On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax bill championed by Donald Trump, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This legislation aims to make permanent the tax cuts established in 2017, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans and corporations. The bill also includes cuts to government assistance programs like Medicaid and SNAP, and ends clean energy tax credits. The bill is expected to cost the federal government $4.6 trillion in lost revenue over the next decade, while saving $1 trillion through reduced spending on assistance programs.
• House passes Trump's tax-and-spend bill — On May 22, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax-and-spend bill, which extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and makes significant spending reductions, particularly in Medicaid and food assistance programs. The bill passed without any Democratic support and has been criticized for potentially increasing the national debt by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis indicates that the bill would leave 10.9 million more Americans uninsured by 2034. The bill now moves to the Senate, where modifications are expected.
• House passes Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill — The House of Representatives passed a major tax-cut bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which aligns with Donald Trump's tax and spending priorities. The bill, passed by a narrow margin of 215-214, includes provisions for tax cuts for individuals and corporations, funding for a border wall, and new work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP. It is expected to add $2.3 trillion to the deficit. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Republicans aim to pass it by July 4th.
• House Committee Advances Bill with Steeper Medicaid Cuts — After extensive debate, the House Rules Committee agreed to advance The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes steeper cuts to Medicaid to gain support from far-right Republicans. These cuts are expected to leave at least 9 million people without healthcare coverage, reflecting a significant shift in healthcare policy.
• House of Representatives passes Republicans' megabill — The House of Representatives passed a significant bill by a vote of 215 to 214, with all Democrats and two Republicans voting against it. The bill includes substantial cuts to healthcare and nutrition assistance, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that it will result in over 2.7 million households losing benefits. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
• House Rules Committee Begins Hearing on The One Big, Beautiful Bill — The House Rules Committee commenced a hearing on a budget bill dubbed The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes significant restrictions on federal courts' authority to hold government officials in contempt for violating court orders. This bill also proposes a $3.8 trillion extension of tax cuts from 2017, primarily benefiting the wealthy and corporations, while cutting federal healthcare and food assistance programs, potentially leaving millions without coverage. The committee moved the bill forward after 22 hours of debate, aiming for a swift vote in the House.
• House Republicans Pass Bill Cutting Medicaid and Medicare — In a late-night session, House Republicans passed a bill that could remove 8 million people from Medicaid, cut Medicare spending, and add $4 trillion to the national debt. The bill also includes tax cuts for the wealthy and funds for the border wall.
• Congressional Budget Office Reports on Impact of Proposed Bill — The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the proposed budget bill will add $2.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next ten years and will trigger cuts to Medicare due to the Pay-As-You-Go law. These cuts, limited by law to 4%, are expected to total approximately $490 billion from 2027 through 2034. The CBO's findings highlight the bill's potential negative impact on low-income Americans and the healthcare system.
• Proposed Cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — The proposed budget bill includes cuts of about 30% to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which would be the largest cut in the program's history. This reduction is projected to cut approximately $300 billion from the program through 2034, affecting over 40 million people, including children and seniors.
• House passes Trump’s budget bill with significant cuts — The House of Representatives passed a budget bill that extends tax cuts for individuals and corporations while implementing funding cuts and new work requirements for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These changes are expected to bar millions from receiving essential benefits, raising concerns among affected workers and advocates. The bill also includes funding for a border wall and facilities for mass deportations.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court blocks deportations under Alien Enemies Act; federal judges escalate enforcement against Trump administration defiance — The US Supreme Court issued a temporary order early Saturday blocking the federal government from removing detainees held in northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act, after lawyers reported detainees received English-only notices with no information on how to challenge deportation. Separately, US District Judge James Boasberg found probable cause to hold the government in contempt for defying orders to halt deportations, and Judge Paula Xinis ordered daily compliance updates after the administration ignored orders to facilitate the return of wrongly deported Kilmar Ábrego García to the United States. The rulings underscore an escalating constitutional conflict over judicial enforcement power.
• Case update — D.B.U. v. Trump (D. Colo.) 1:25-cv-01163 — Petitioners filed a reply in support of their motion for an emergency TRO and requested the Court maintain the TRO due to the government's transfer of detainees under the AEA with less than 24 hours notice.
• Amy Klobuchar calls on Supreme Court to hold Trump officials in contempt for ignoring deportation order — Senator Amy Klobuchar called on the U.S. Supreme Court to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for allegedly ignoring a court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident the government admitted it deported by mistake to El Salvador. Klobuchar suggested the Court appoint an independent special prosecutor outside the Department of Justice to enforce the rule of law. Her comments followed Justice Samuel Alito's dissent criticizing the Court's decision to block deportations of Venezuelans held in Texas.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court orders temporary halt to deportations of Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act — The US Supreme Court issued an emergency order early Saturday directing the Trump administration to temporarily halt deportations of Venezuelan men held in ICE custody, particularly at the Bluebonnet detention center in Texas. The ACLU had filed an emergency motion Friday arguing that dozens of detainees classified as Tren de Aragua gang members faced imminent removal without judicial review previously mandated by the Court. The order requires the government to cease removals pending further court direction. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
• Supreme Court blocks deportations under Alien Enemies Act; Alito and Thomas dissent — Early Saturday morning, April 19, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order blocking the Trump administration from deporting a group of undocumented Venezuelans under the authority of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The men had already been loaded onto buses heading to an airplane when the Court intervened. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The Court issued its decision without waiting for the dissenters to finish writing, signaling urgency and lack of confidence in the government's legal compliance.
• Case update — W.M.M. v. Trump (a.k.a. A.A.R.P. v. Trump) (N.D. Tex.) 1:25-cv-00059 — The Supreme Court issued a stay writing, “The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.” Justice Alito and Thomas dissented.
• SCOTUS stays removal of detainees in A.A.R.P. v. Trump pending Fifth Circuit action — The Supreme Court issued an order in the pending case A.A.R.P. et al. v. Trump (Docket 24A1007), in which a putative class of detainees sought an injunction against removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The Court directed the Government not to remove any member of the putative class from the United States pending further order, invited the Solicitor General to file a response after Fifth Circuit action, and noted that Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the order.

Supporting reports

• Judge Xinis orders government to return Abrego Garcia by April 7 — On April 4, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States no later than 11:59 p.m. on April 7. In her April 6 opinion, Judge Xinis found that there were "no legal grounds whatsoever for his arrest, detention, or removal" and that his detention "appears wholly lawless" and constitutes "a clear constitutional violation." She rejected the government's claim that it lacks jurisdiction to order his return, writing that the administration cannot "forcibly remove any person—migrant and U.S. citizen alike—to prisons outside the United States, and then baldly assert they have no way to effectuate return."
• U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis ordered government to return deported legal resident from El Salvador — U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to bring back to the United States no later than 11:59 p.m. on April 7 a legal resident, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government mistakenly sent to a notorious prison for terrorists in El Salvador. The government had claimed the deportation was an "administrative error" but argued it could not bring him back because he was outside the reach of American laws. Judge Xinis found that Abrego Garcia, who was in the U.S. legally and was not charged with any crimes, was arrested "without legal basis" and deported "without justification of legal basis," calling it "an illegal act."
• Case update — Abrego Garcia v. Noem (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-00951 — Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a TRO. The Defendants state it was an “administrative error” to have removed Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, but oppose the relief that Plaintiffs request.

Supporting reports

• Judge blocks Trump from using Alien Enemies Act for deportations — A federal judge, James Boasberg, issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport five Venezuelan nationals. The administration had invoked the act, claiming the Venezuelans were part of the Tren de Aragua gang, designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The judge's decision came in response to a lawsuit by the ACLU and Democracy Forward, arguing the act was unlawfully invoked during peacetime. The restraining order prevents deportations for 14 days, maintaining the status quo until a hearing is set.
• U.S. District Judge blocks deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued an order temporarily blocking the Trump administration's deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. The ruling was based on the lack of hearings for the individuals to present evidence against their alleged gang affiliation. The administration had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify the deportations without due process.
• Judge Boasberg issued temporary restraining order blocking Alien Enemies Act deportations — US District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants and ordered planes carrying migrants out of the country to immediately turn around. The administration defied the order, with three planes landing in El Salvador and more than 135 migrants deported.
• Judge halts deportation under Alien Enemies Act — A federal judge, James Boasberg, issued an immediate halt to the deportation of five Venezuelan nationals, blocking the Trump administration's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The administration had invoked this wartime law, claiming the Venezuelans were part of a gang conducting hostile actions against the U.S. The judge's order required any planes already in the air to be turned around. This decision came in response to a lawsuit by civil liberties organizations arguing the act's misuse during peacetime.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks deportation of Mahmoud Khalil — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate and green card holder, who was detained by immigration officers. Khalil's detention was part of a broader campaign against pro-Palestinian activists on university campuses. The judge is considering an appeal to move Khalil from a detention center in Louisiana back to New York. This legal intervention highlights the contentious nature of the administration's immigration enforcement actions.

Supporting reports

• Case update — Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00418 — Plaintiffs filed a Reply explaining that in spite of the administration's Feb. 20 notice that all immigrant detainees had been transferred off Guantánamo and the TRO was moot, they had learned via social media that another group of immigrants was being sent to Guantánamo. The Reply adds further factual allegations and legal arguments that immigrant detainees are prevented from having real meaningful access to legal representation. These include that (1) the government and guards at the detention camp do not allow detainees to make phone calls, including by saying “this is a terrorist prison and there is no capacity to make calls” and by limiting available phones and times such that most people cannot use them; (2) unrepresented detainees transferred to Guantanamo do not have access to a legal directory, know your rights briefings, or practical means to meet counsel; and (3) retained counsel face numerous obstacles to representing their clients, including that only five detainees can make phone calls each day, there are no means for attorneys to initiate contact with their clients, and there is no way to transfer or sign paperwork other than the government's announced policy to “generally follow the procedures used in the habeas litigation involving law of war detainees,” and to transfer mail to detainees from Washington, D.C. on a weekly basis. Plaintiffs argue that these restrictions violate detainees' First and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as their statutory right to counsel under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as the plaintiff advocacy organizations' First Amendment rights.
• Case update — Storch et al. v. Hegseth et al. (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00415 — State Attorneys General of Florida and 19 states submitted an amicus brief in support of Defendants. The State of Tennessee also submitted an amicus brief in support of Defendants.
• Motion granted — AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00400 — The plaintiffs in Global Health Council v. Trump filed an emergency renewed motion to enforce the TRO. The court held a hearing the following day and, on Feb. 25, granted the motion for a proposed order requiring the Administration pay all invoices and letter of credit drawdown requests for work completed prior to the TRO, as well as reimbursements on grants and assistance agreements by 11:59 pm on Wednesday, Feb. 26. The court further mandated that the Administration take no actions to impede and must ensure the prompt payment of appropriated foreign assistance funds going forward. The court also reportedly ordered the government to provide the court, by Feb. 26 at noon, with all internal directives to agency employees concerning compliance with the TRO.
• Motion granted — Global Health Council v. Trump (D.D.C.) ​​1:25-cv-00402 — Plaintiffs filed an emergency renewed motion to enforce the TRO. The court held a hearing the following day and, on Feb. 25, granted the motion for a proposed order requiring the Administration pay all invoices and letter of credit drawdown requests for work completed prior to the TRO, as well as reimbursements on grants and assistance agreements by 11:59 pm on Wednesday, Feb. 26. The court further mandated that the Administration take no actions to impede and must ensure the prompt payment of appropriated foreign assistance funds going forward. The court also reportedly ordered the government to provide the court, by Feb. 26 at noon, with all internal directives to agency employees concerning compliance with the TRO.
• Notice of appeal filed — Nat’l Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. v. Trump (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-00333 — Defendants submitted a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit (Case No. 25-1189 ).
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Federation of Teachers et al v. Bessent et al (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-00430 — The court granted a TRO enjoining the Department of Education and Office of Personnel Management from disclosing sensitive information to any DOGE affiliates. The court denied the motion for a TRO against Treasury officials on the basis that a preliminary injunction against Treasury has already been granted in a related case.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Doe v. McHenry (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00286 — Judge Lamberth issued an Order granting the request for an expanded preliminary injunction covering the additional plaintiffs.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — John and Jane Does 1-9 v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00325 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , a motion for preliminary injunction , and a memorandum in support of the motion for preliminary injunction.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — New Mexico et al. v. Musk (D.D.C.) 1.25-cv-00429 — Plaintiff States filed a motion for expedited discovery relating to an upcoming motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition on Feb 28. Plaintiffs filed a reply on March 3. Plaintiffs' expedited discovery motion seeks “to confirm public reporting about Defendants' conduct, show Defendants' future plans, and illustrate the nature and scope of the unconstitutional and unlawful authority that Defendants are exercising and will continue to imminently exercise.” The document requests and interrogatories generally concern DOGE's and Musk's conduct in four areas: (1) eliminating or reducing the size of federal agencies; (2) terminating or placing federal employees on leave; (3) cancelling, freezing, or pausing federal contracts, grants, or other federal funding; and (4) obtaining access, using, or making changes to federal databases or data management systems.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Department of State et al. (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00465 — Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Judge blocks ICE enforcement at houses of worship — A federal judge temporarily blocked ICE agents from conducting enforcement measures at some churches and other houses of worship. This decision protects religious sanctuaries and addresses concerns about immigration enforcement.

Supporting reports

• Trump issues executive order to end birthright citizenship — On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to overturn birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. The order declares that children born in the US to parents who are not US citizens or lawful permanent residents, or who have only temporary legal status, are not automatically US citizens. The order applies to births after February 19, 2025. The Migration Policy Institute estimated approximately 255,000 children annually would be affected, potentially adding 2.7 million unauthorized immigrants by 2045.
• Appeals court denies Trump's plea to reinstate birthright citizenship ban — A federal appeals court in San Francisco denied the Trump administration's request to reinstate a ban on birthright citizenship. This decision leaves in place an injunction issued by a federal court in Washington state. The case, brought by Democratic attorneys general from Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois, challenges an executive order signed by Trump on his first day in office, which aimed to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens or non-legal permanent residents. The appeals court's decision sets up a potential battle at the US Supreme Court.
• US court denies reinstatement of birthright citizenship ban — A US appeals court denied the Justice Department's emergency application to reinstate a ban on birthright citizenship. The ban, initially ordered by Donald Trump, was blocked by a court, and the appeals court ruled that the DOJ did not demonstrate an emergency need to overturn the decision. This ruling maintains the status quo regarding birthright citizenship in the US.