House Dems rally against ICE funding just one year after dozens broke ranks on immigration

House Democrats voted overwhelmingly Thursday to block additional funding for ICE, a remarkable shift from when dozens of them voted to expand the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement authority just one year ago — and a sign of how quickly the political ground has moved since President Donald Trump returned to the White House. Just seven Democrats voted for the Homeland Security spending bill that included billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi of New York, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Don Davis of North Carolina. All represent tough terrain — Trump carried all of their districts but Gillen’s, which he lost by just over one point. 00:01 02:00 Read More Other Democrats, incensed by an ICE agent’s shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, voted against the bill — including many who voted exactly one year ago to pass the Laken Riley Act that allows for the detention of undocumented immigrants accused of certain crimes. One of them, Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.), a top GOP target in the midterms from a district Trump narrowly carried in 2024, argued this vote was different. “What we have seen time and again is ICE has blatantly violated our Constitution and our law, whether you’re talking about the shooting of a young mother to sending a five year old thousands of miles away to entice his father to turn himself in — this type of shit is not American,” Lee said in an interview Thursday. “ICE has plenty of money … I can’t in good conscience give them any more money until we get some type of guardrails.” Even the Democrats who voted for the funding were sharply critical of ICE. “I hate what ICE is doing in my district and across the country. It’s atrocious. It’s appalling. We should find ways to defund those operations in a surgical way,” Gonzalez said in a brief interview, adding that he supported the bill because it also included funding for Coast Guard and FEMA operations. “But voting no, just to make a statement, could have its own repercussions.” The House passed the DHS funding bill 220 to 207. Democrats’ near-united stand against the bill comes amid building opposition to Trump’s mass deportation campaign. A 49 percent plurality of voters in a new POLITICO poll conducted Jan. 16 to 19 said the effort — including Trump’s widespread deployment of ICE agents across the U.S. — is too aggressive. “The shift is dramatic. And I think the reason for the shift is: Last year the debate in the country was about getting control of the borders and out-of-control immigration. Now the entire situation is about ICE itself and its behavior,” Mark Longabaugh, a veteran Democratic strategist, said of the party’s recalibration on immigration. Amid the growing public furor over ICE’s hardline tactics, congressional Democrats had demanded that any new Homeland Security funding come with more guardrails. The bill most of them voted against Thursday funds ICE at $10 billion through the rest of the fiscal year that ends in September, while cutting funding for removal and enforcement operations by $115 million and Border Patrol funding by $1.8 billion. It also included some Democratic demands: decreasing the number of detention beds by 5,500, providing $20 million each for body cameras for agents and independent oversight of DHS detention facilities, and directing the department to give officers more training on diffusing conflict while interacting with the public. It does not include other items Democrats pushed for, however, such as banning agents from wearing masks during operations, requiring judicial warrants, preventing DHS from detaining and deporting U.S. citizens and blocking the department from using other agencies’ personnel for immigration enforcement. The Democrats who voted in favor of the funding bill argued it was preferable to the alternative — giving Trump what Cuellar described as a “blank check” to carry out his hardline immigration agenda “virtually unchecked.” And some expressed concerns about ramifications for their districts if other agencies who receive their funding through DHS were cut off. Davis warned of the potential consequences of lapsed FEMA and Coast Guard funding in his home state of North Carolina that has been battered by storms and floods in recent years. “Obviously we should have the honest conversations about warrants. We should have the honest conversations about taking off the masks,” Davis said Thursday. But “if we can’t consistently predict when disasters are coming our way, then we’re leaving populations of people vulnerable.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

‘Is Bond Now Being Granted?’: Conflicting Orders Leave Detainees, Attorneys in Limbo

Immigration detainees hoping to be released from jail have been thrust into chaos after the chief judge of immigration courts told judges to disregard a federal order that made it possible to request bond. In recent weeks, judges in New York and New Jersey immigration court had been willing to listen to requests for bond, as a California federal judge required in a class-action order that she issued on Nov. 25. The decision struck down a six-month-old Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy that had dramatically expanded the legal definition of mandatory detention. The door, briefly opened, seemed to shut last week when Chief Judge Teresa Riley of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) issued internal guidance instructing judges to stop relying on the class-action order “forthwith.” The directive from Riley, who became chief of the office that runs the U.S. immigration courts last month, is largely unprecedented, immigration lawyers and experts told Documented, and represents the latest challenge to courts’ independence under the Trump administration. Immigration judges are career Justice Department employees who are by law independent adjudicators. Immigration News, Curated Sign up to get our curation of news, insights on big stories, job announcements, and events happening in immigration. Enter your email here... Sign Up For Free ​​“When you have a supervisor who tells you or suggests not to follow a federal district court judge’s decision, that takes away a judge’s independence,” said Jeremiah Johnson, vice president of the National Association of Immigration judges. The Trump administration has fired many immigration judges since taking office in January and also pushed out all Biden administration appointees from making decisions at the Board of Immigration Appeals. Greg Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said that the government appears to be in “open defiance” of judicial orders. “I’ve never heard of the Department of Justice immigration court leadership issuing an instruction to judges essentially to disregard a federal court order, which is essentially what this EOIR email does,” Chen said. EOIR spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly declined to respond to questions, saying the agency doesn’t comment on litigation. ICE and the Department of Homeland Security didn’t respond to requests for comment. Conflicting Orders Riley’s memo scrambled an already confused situation: In Manhattan’s Varick Street court, the two judges who handle the bulk of the detainee immigration cases in New York City began to give opposite rulings. One judge, Charles Conroy, had granted bond hearings in previous weeks in response to the class-action order. But on Jan. 14, after Riley’s directive circulated, he said he could no longer permit the contested bond hearings. Conroy declined to comment. The other judge, Dara Reid, presiding over the detainee calendar the following day, said she had to grant a bond hearing because of the federal class-action order. “I don’t see any way around it,” Reid said, adding, “I’m bound by it.” When the ICE lawyer restated the government’s position, Reid disagreed and said, “maybe we’ll have a real answer” soon. The attorney, appearing in the courtroom by video from ICE’s office in the same building, bowed his head in laughter and covered his face. “I laughed because I didn’t want to cry,” he said. Federal Judge Sunshine Sykes, who had issued the class-action order requiring bond hearings, delayed a previously scheduled hearing last Friday until Jan. 22 to give the government’s lawyers time to respond to reports about the chief judge’s directive. Even before the chief judge’s order, most immigration judges across the country had been accepting ICE’s push to mandate detention for many more noncitizens until their deportation cases are resolved, according to Niels Frenzen, a law professor at the University of Southern California and one of the attorneys in the class-action case. Legal advocates filed the case in July, aiming to strike down a policy ICE adopted in a July 8 memo that redefined who was “seeking admission” and therefore ineligible for release on bond. The term should apply not only to people arriving unlawfully at or near the border—the practice for nearly three decades—but also to those who entered the country “without inspection” long ago, the agency said. That legal stance has helped ICE to fill its lockups. Faced with indefinite incarceration under poor conditions, many detainees have given up their legal right to contest deportation and asked to leave the country voluntarily. Federal judges have ruled in hundreds of individual cases that the policy was an unconstitutional denial of due process. The case before Sykes, in the U.S. District Court in Riverside, California, was filed on behalf of four people detained in ICE’s intensive and controversial raids in Los Angeles in June. The case garnered national attention when the judge certified it as a national class action on Nov. 25 in what appeared to be a transformative decision in favor of detainees. Since then, the Justice Department has tried various gambits to dodge the order and has also filed an appeal to the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Sykes’s order remains in effect. Seeking Bond Most immigration judges in New York and New Jersey (where many New Yorkers’ cases are heard after they’re detained in the Garden State or Pennsylvania) lined up behind Judge Sykes’s Maldonado Bautista v. Noem ruling, according to interviews with local attorneys and courtroom observations. Still, the bond hearings very often end up with judges refusing to allow release. In immigration court, the burden is on detainees (rather than prosecutors, as in criminal courts) to prove they are not a flight risk or danger to the community. And it’s not so easy to prove a negative. Dulce, a 51-year-old woman born in the Puebla state of Mexico, was able to request bond thanks to the Bautista decision. On Jan. 6, she was led through the corridors of the Elizabeth Contract Detention Center to a low-ceilinged courtroom on the ground floor. Immigration Judge Arya Ranasinghe was presiding, albeit via video from her courtroom in Newark, five miles away. The judge quickly bypassed Department of Homeland Security attorney Sarah Campbell’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to consider bond. Then Campbell sought to use a minor offense to make the case that Dulce wouldn’t return to court if released. Dulce, whose full name is being withheld by Documented, has lived in the United States since 1993 and doesn’t have a criminal record. But under the DHS lawyer’s questioning, she acknowledged getting a traffic ticket for driving with an expired license 14 years ago. Campbell demanded to know why it didn’t show up in her search of a database of New Jersey municipal court records, and implied Dulce gave a false name to police. Dulce said she didn’t know. Her attorney, Maggie Dunsmuir, quickly located the record under her name in the same database. Judge Ranasinghe set a $10,000 bond, noting that Dulce has a 9-year-old child to care for and that she had lost her husband, a U.S. citizen, to ALS in October. He was 46. Weeping and weary looking beneath a cascade of dark, wavy hair, Dulce followed a guard back to the cells in her blue scrubs to wait for her bond to be processed. She was released three days later, having been detained since Dec. 23, through the Christmas season. She was home in time for her daughter’s 10th birthday. A Challenge to Mandatory Detention The sticking point in the legal battle over this policy is a Sept. 5 decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Justice Department unit that interprets immigration laws. In the decision, known as Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the board provided a legal basis for the detention policy ICE had adopted two months before. It found that a “plain reading” of a 1996 immigration law contradicted the longtime interpretation of who was “seeking admission.” The board’s published decisions are binding on immigration judges. Blocked from seeking bond for their clients in immigration court, many lawyers have gone to federal district courts to file habeas corpus lawsuits, the legal mechanism used to challenge unconstitutional detention. Federal judges have found time and again in these habeas cases that the ICE policy and the immigration board’s “plain reading” of the law were plainly wrong. In a Nov. 26 ruling, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan cited 350 decisions that rejected the Trump administration’s novel position on mandatory detention (of the 362 total decisions about the administration’s policy). The rulings came from 160 judges in 50 courts. “Thus, the overwhelming, lopsided majority have held that the law still means what it always has meant,” Judge Kaplan wrote in ordering release of Sergio Barco Mercado, a carpenter from Peru. Barco had been granted bond in 2022 but ICE re-arrested him as he left a courtroom at 26 Federal Plaza in New York on Aug. 8. He was detained under what the court ruled elsewhere were deplorable conditions. The government’s argument “does not and has never had a reasonable basis in statutory text, structure, or history,” Kaplan wrote. “Their position has been rejected with near unanimity in the overwhelming majority of cases across the country.” In his order, he required the government to pay Barco’s legal fees. More such rulings have followed. In a Jan. 2 decision, Judge Clay Land of U.S. District Court in Columbus, Georgia, ordered bond hearings for the plaintiffs in 44 separate habeas cases with a single two-page ruling. He wrote: “The brevity of this order is appropriate given that the issue presented is exactly the same as the issue previously decided on numerous occasions by the Court and yet Respondents [the government agencies] insist upon denying the relief that the Court has found is required.” But all of these rulings were for individual cases. Judge Sykes’s Nov. 25 decision to grant class-action status to her previous ruling in the Maldonado Bautista case changed that. Immigrant advocates rejoiced. But ICE lawyers went on to tell immigration judges for more than three weeks that the ruling didn’t apply because Judge Sykes had not entered a final judgment in the case. In the Elizabeth court, Immigration Judge Tamar Wilson rejected several bond requests on Dec. 18 because in her view, the Hurtado case remained in effect. In one instance, she told the lawyer for a Guatemalan man, Jose Madrid-Vargas, that if she did have jurisdiction, she would grant release on $7,500 bond. Later that same day in California, Judge Sykes filed the final judgment in the class-action case; it “vacates” the policy described in the July 8 ICE memo across the country. She also made clear she’d invalidated the Hurtado ruling. She said she didn’t specifically vacate the Hurtado decision because it came after the lawsuit before her was filed. But, she wrote, the Hurtado interpretation contradicted her order and therefore “is no longer controlling.” DHS attorneys sought to sidestep Sykes’s Dec.18 order by telling judges in immigration courts in Newark, Elizabeth and New York that the ruling had not formally vacated the Hurtado decision. This was true, but misleading: Sykes’s clarifying order on Dec. 18 stated that Hurtado should no longer be relied on. In a Jan. 9 report to the court, the plaintiffs in the class action case said that “remarkably,” judges are taking different positions even within the same immigration court. Further Confusion This back and forth between ICE’s attorneys and immigration judges, on whether to conform to Hurtado or Bautista, has left an uncertain terrain for any immigration detainee who hopes to be released on bond. “Is bond now being granted?” the lawyer for a Senegalese detainee asked Newark Immigration Judge Michael Neal on Dec. 29. “Are you referring to Bautista?” the judge responded. “Yes.” “There have been developments on that case” was all the judge would say. It’s the question of the hour for detainees and their lawyers. “What’s your position with the Maldonado [Bautista] bond hearings?” attorney Sebastian Estrada asked on Jan. 7 on behalf of a Mexican client held in an Orange County, New York, jail. “Are you hearing them?” “Yes, I am,” Conroy, the New York immigration judge, answered. Nonetheless, the DHS attorney on duty in Judge Conroy’s court continued to present the Trump administration’s argument in each bond hearing. “I don’t agree with that, based on Bautista,” Conroy replied. That didn’t help an Indian immigrant who appeared before him. The judge found that he failed to prove he wasn’t a danger to the community, based on a conviction for aggravated driving under the influence. Across the hall on Jan. 8, Immigration Judge Thomas Mungoven was filling in on detainee docket duty for the week. He tried to avoid declaring where he stood between the rock and the hard place of the two legal decisions. DHS once again argued that the Hurtado case barred a hearing, this time for a Staten Island man from Mexico, whose supporting documents included a letter from Bishop Peter Byrne of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. ALSO READ How New Yorkers Are Stepping Up to Protect Immigrant Neighbors BY Eileen Grench Jan 23, 2026 The judge refused bond, based on the man’s 2014 conviction for assault and two more recent criminal cases that were dismissed. “I’m not addressing the Hurtado-Bautista issue,” he emphasized. But in a sense, he was. Just by hearing the request, the judge had taken a position. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Thousands protest against Trump immigration policies

Jan 20 (Reuters) - Thousands of U.S. workers and students marched through cities and university campuses on Tuesday in opposition to the immigration policies of President Donald Trump. On the first anniversary of Trump's second term, protests sprang up across the country against his aggressive immigration crackdown that prompted outrage after federal agents dragged a U.S. citizen from her car and shot dead 37-year-old mother Renee Good in Minneapolis in past weeks. The Reuters Inside Track newsletter is your essential guide to the biggest events in global sport. Sign up here. Advertisement · Scroll to continue Hundreds of protesters gathered in Washington and smaller cities like Asheville, North Carolina, where demonstrators marched through the downtown shouting "No ICE, no KKK, no fascist USA," according to online videos. Item 1 of 4 People hold signs and a U.S. flag during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's policies on the one-year mark into his second term in office in Los Angeles, California, U.S., January 20, 2026. REUTERS/Arafat Barbakh [1/4]People hold signs and a U.S. flag during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's policies on the one-year mark into his second term in office in Los Angeles, California, U.S., January 20, 2026. REUTERS/Arafat Barbakh Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab The Trump administration says it has a mandate from voters to deport millions of immigrants in the country illegally. Recent polls show most Americans disapprove of the use of force by officers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies. University students demonstrated in Cleveland, Ohio, chanting "No hate, no fear, refugees are welcome here" while high schoolers in Santa Fe, New Mexico, left class to attend a "Stop ICE Terror" rally at the state capitol, according to protest organizers and school officials. Advertisement · Scroll to continue The actions were organized by left-leaning groups such as Indivisible and 50501, as well as labor unions and grassroots organizations opposed to immigrant detention camps, like one in El Paso, Texas, where three detainees have died in the last six weeks, according to federal authorities. The demonstrations were set to roll west to cities such as San Francisco and Seattle, where afternoon and evening protests were planned. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump's ICE force is sweeping America. Billions in his tax and spending cuts bill are paying for it

WASHINGTON (AP) — A ballooning Immigration and Customs Enforcement budget. Hiring bonuses of $50,000. Swelling ranks of ICE officers, to 22,000, in an expanding national force bigger than most police departments in America. President Donald Trump promised the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history, but achieving his goal wouldn't have been possible without funding from the big tax and spending cuts bill passed by Republicans in Congress, and it's fueling unprecedented immigration enforcement actions in cities like Minneapolis and beyond. The GOP's big bill is "supercharging ICE," one budget expert said, in ways that Americans may not fully realize — and that have only just begun. "I just don't think people have a sense of the scale," said Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress and a former adviser to the Biden administration's Office of Management and Budget. "We're looking at ICE in a way we've never seen before," he said. Trump's big bill creates massive law enforcement force As the Republican president marks the first year of his second term, the immigration enforcement and removal operation that has been a cornerstone of his domestic and foreign policy agenda is rapidly transforming into something else — a national law enforcement presence with billions upon billions of dollars in new spending from U.S. taxpayers. The shooting death of Renee Good in Minneapolis showed the alarming reach of the new federalized force, sparking unrelenting protests against the military-styled officers seen going door to door to find and detain immigrants. Amid the outpouring of opposition, Trump revived threats to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell the demonstrations and the U.S. Army has 1,500 soldiers ready to deploy. But Trump's own public approval rating on immigration, one of his signature issues, has slipped since he took office, according to an AP-NORC poll. "Public sentiment is everything," said Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez, D-N.Y., at a press conference at the Capitol with lawmakers supporting legislation to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Americans, she said, are upset at what they are seeing. "They didn't sign on for this," she said. Border crossings down, but Americans confront new ICE enforcements To be sure, illegal crossings into the U.S. at the Mexico border have fallen to historic lows under Trump, a remarkable shift from just a few years ago when President Joe Biden's Democratic administration allowed millions of people to temporarily enter the U.S. as they adjudicated their claims to stay. Yet as enforcement moves away from the border, the newly hired army of immigration officers swarming city streets with aggressive tactics — in Los Angeles, Chicago and elsewhere — is something not normally seen in the U.S. Armed and masked law enforcement officers are being witnessed smashing car windows, yanking people from vehicles and chasing and wrestling others to the ground and hauling them away — images playing out in endless loops on TVs and other screens. And it's not just ICE. A long list of supporting agencies, including federal, state and local police and sheriff's offices, are entering into contract partnerships with Homeland Security to conduct immigration enforcement operations in communities around the nation. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has warned Democrats that this is "no time to be playing games" by stirring up the opposition to immigration enforcement officers in Minneapolis and other places. WATCH: Minnesota protests enter 3rd week as immigration raids continue "They need to get out of the way and allow federal law enforcement to do its duty," Johnson said at the Capitol. Noem has said the immigration enforcement officers are acting lawfully. The department insists it's targeting criminals in the actions, what officials call the worst of the worst immigrants. However, reports show that non-criminals and U.S. citizens are also being forcibly detained by immigration officers. The Supreme Court last year lifted a ban on using race alone in the immigration stops. Trump last month called Somali immigrants "garbage," comments that echoed his past objections to immigrants from certain countries. The Trump administration has set a goal of 100,000 detentions a day, about three times what's typical, with 1 million deportations a year. Money from the big bill flows with few restraints With Republican control of Congress, the impeachment of Noem or any other Trump official is not a viable political option for Democrats, who would not appear to have the vote tally even among their own ranks. In fact, even if Congress wanted to curtail Trump's immigration operations — by threatening to shut down the government, for example — it would be difficult to stop the spend. What Trump called the "big, beautiful bill" is essentially on autopilot through 2029, the year he's scheduled to finish his term and leave office. The legislation essentially doubled annual Homeland Security funding, adding $170 billion to be used over four years. Of that, ICE, which typically receives about $10 billion a year, was provided $30 billion for operations and $45 billion for detention facilities. "The first thing that comes to mind is spending on this level is typically done on the military," said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. "Trump is militarizing immigration enforcement." Ahead, Congress will consider a routine annual funding package for Homeland Security unveiled Tuesday, or risk a partial shutdown Jan. 30. A growing group of Democratic senators and the Congressional Progressive Caucus have had enough. They say they won't support additional funds without significant changes. Lawmakers are considering various restrictions on ICE operations, including limiting arrests around hospitals, courthouses, churches and other sensitive locations and ensuring that officers display proper identification and refrain from wearing face masks. "I think ICE needs to be totally torn down," said Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., on CNN over the weekend. "People want immigration enforcement that goes after criminals," he said. And not what he called this "goon squad." Big spending underway, but Trump falls short of goals Meanwhile, Homeland Security has begun tapping the new money at its disposal. The department informed Congress it has obligated roughly $58 billion — most of that, some $37 billion, for border wall construction, according to a person familiar with the private assessment but unauthorized to discuss it. The Department of Homeland Security said its massive recruitment campaign blew past its 10,000-person target to bring in 12,000 new hires, more than doubling the force to 22,000 officers, in a matter of months. "The good news is that thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill that President Trump signed, we have an additional 12,000 ICE officers and agents on the ground across the country," Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a December statement. The department also announced it had arrested and deported about 600,000 people. It also said 1.9 million other people had "voluntarily self-deported" since January 2025, when Trump took office. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Judge allows Trump administration to block lawmakers’ access to ICE facilities

The Trump administration won a legal victory on Monday that temporarily allows it to keep elected officials out of immigration detention camps, while it advanced two other court actions in support of its surge into Minnesota. A federal judge in Washington DC ruled that the homeland security department (DHS) can continue to insist that lawmakers provide a week’s notice of their intention to inspect immigration facilities, even though she blocked an identical policy last month. Separately, justice department lawyers urged a district court judge in Minneapolis to allow the administration’s immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota to continue, in response to a lawsuit filed by the state seeking to end what it called a “federal invasion”. And in a related development, the justice department said it was appealing an injunction issued on Friday curbing aggressive tactics by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies in dealing with protesters. Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, backtracked on Sunday on her insistence that federal agents had not used chemical substances including pepper spray against crowds protesting ICE actions, and claimed instead they were necessary to “establish law and order”. The Washington DC ruling on congressional oversight of federal immigration facilities comes after three Democratic members of Congress from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison, said DHS officials illegally blocked them from performing authorized congressional oversight when they tried to inspect an ICE detention center near Minneapolis earlier this month. The Colorado congressman Joe Neguse and colleagues filed a lawsuit arguing that it violated district court judge Jia Cobb’s December ruling blocking DHS from enforcing a seven-day notice period. But in four-page ruling on Monday, Cobb said the fact that the DHS claimed it was now enforcing the seven-day requirement using funding from a different source, namely Trump’s so-called “big, beautiful bill”, instead of existing appropriations, meant the policy “facially differs” from the one she blocked. “If plaintiffs wish to challenge the legality of a new agency action, plaintiffs may seek leave to amend their complaint or file a supplemental pleading,” she wrote, adding that she would consider another temporary restraining order. Neguse did not respond to Cobb’s ruling, but in an earlier post on social media said no-notice inspections were essential. “The law is crystal-clear: the administration can’t block members of Congress from conducting real-time oversight of immigration detention facilities,” he wrote. Meanwhile, the justice department responded on Monday to the lawsuit brought by Minnesota, and the cities of Minneapolis and St Paul, seeking an end to ICE activities, claiming the state was demanding an unprecedented veto over federal law enforcement. At a press conference last week announcing the action, Keith Ellison, the Minnesota attorney general, said the cities were being terrorized by federal actions, including the shooting death of Renee Good, an unarmed US citizen, by an ICE agent. “We allege that DHS’s use of excessive and lethal force, their warrantless, racist arrests, their targeting of our courts, our churches, houses of worship and schools are a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act on arbitrary and capricious federal actions,” he said. Justice department lawyers, however, called the lawsuit “an absurdity”, according to the New York Times. “It would render the supremacy of federal law an afterthought to local preferences,” they said, and an injunction blocking the operation “would constitute an unprecedented act of judicial overreach”, the newspaper reported. Katherine Menendez, the Joe Biden-appointed district court judge hearing the case, made no immediate ruling but indicated she might hold another hearing before deciding on the lawsuit’s merits. Menendez is also the judge who issued the order on Friday curtailing ICE’s tactics, including “retaliation” against protesters and “the drawing and pointing of weapons; the use of pepper spray and other non-lethal munitions; actual and threatened arrest and detainment of protesters and observers; and other intimidation tactics”. The DHS told Menendez on Monday it had filed an appeal notice with the eighth district court of appeal, the New York Times reported, noting that the text of the document was not immediately available. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

How ICE grew to be the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency

Just 10 years ago, the annual budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, was less than $6 billion — notably smaller than other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. But ICE's budget has skyrocketed during President Trump's second term, becoming the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency, with $85 billion now at its disposal. The windfall is thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted last July. After hovering around the $10 billion mark for years, ICE's budget suddenly benefited from a meteoric spike. "With this new bill and other appropriations, it's larger than the annual budget of all other federal law enforcement agencies combined," said Lauren-Brooke Eisen, senior director of the justice program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy institute. Sponsor Message ICE is now the lead agency in President's Trump immigration crackdown, sending thousands of agents into U.S. communities. As its funding and profile has grown as part of those efforts, ICE has come under increasing criticism for its officers' actions, from masked agents randomly stopping, questioning, and detaining people and thrusting them into unmarked vehicles to the recent killing of Renee Macklin Good in Minneapolis. A cycle of more migrants, more money and a larger ICE mission ICE's sudden growth spurt follows roughly two decades of relatively modest funding since 2003, when the agency was created by merging the U.S. Customs Service with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In 2015, for instance, Congress approved a budget of around $5.96 billion, which was nearly $1 billion less than then-President Barack Obama had requested. A woman poses for a portrait outside her home, Saturday, July 19, 2025, in Tampa. Her family are discussing emergency plans if she or her husband were to be detained, and are looking to move to another state where the police presence is less felt. (Lexi Parra for NPR) National 'We need to get out of here': Trump's immigration crackdown is quietly reshaping where immigrants live in America National Limiting migration led to 1.6 million losing legal status in 2025 In 2019, during the first Trump administration, border control officer's encounters with migrants attempting authorized entry to the U.S. spiked. Those numbers then plummeted as the COVID-19 pandemic prompted invocation of the Title 42 public health law, allowing CBP to expel migrants more quickly, with restricted pathways to asylum. Encounters rose sharply under former President Joe Biden and soared above 3.2 million in 2023, when Biden lifted Title 42. By late 2024, fewer migrants were arriving at the border, due to U.S. asylum limits and Mexico bolstering enforcement. When Trump returned to the White House in 2025, he sought to empower immigration authorities to quickly remove migrants and announced a crackdown led by ICE. Sponsor Message Under the 2025 law, ICE has a $75 billion supplement that it can take as long as four years to spend, along with its base budget of around $10 billion. If the agency spends that money at a steady pace and current funding levels continue, it would have nearly $29 billion on hand each year. That essentially triples ICE's total budget from recent years. To give that large number a sense of scale, consider that the Trump administration's 2026 appropriations request for the entire Justice Department, including the FBI, stands at a little over $35 billion. People detained by federal agents walk into a suburban Chicago ICE detention center in Broadview, Ill., on Sept. 19. Immigration It's the deadliest year for people in ICE custody in decades; next year could be worse The Trump administration has set lofty goals for ICE, aiming to deport 1 million people each year. And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act also allocates $45 billion for ICE to expand its immigration detention system — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said last June that the agency will be able to hold up to 100,000 people in custody daily. By comparison, the federal Bureau of Prisons currently holds over 153,000 inmates. As of Nov. 30, 65,735 people were held in immigration detention, according to the data tracking project Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. With those metrics in mind, ICE went on a hiring spree in 2025, fueled by its bigger budget. In just one year, the agency says, it "more than doubled our officers and agents from 10,000 to 22,000." (The Office of Personnel Management, which tracks federal workforce statistics, is only updated through Nov. 30 and does not reflect any hiring made by the DHS in the last quarter of the year.) According to the DHS, ICE received 220,000 applications in 2025, thanks in part to a generous incentive package with perks like a signing bonus of up to $50,000, disbursed over the course of a five-year commitment, and up to $60,000 in student loan repayment. ICE is still on that hiring spree, looking to hire deportation officers in at least 25 cities around the U.S., according to a job listing on the USA Jobs website that will remain active through the end of September. The starting salary for an ICE deportation officer in the Enforcement and Removal Operations division, or ERO, ranges from $51,632 up to $84,277. Sponsor Message Liz Goggin (left), a licensed clinical social worker, and Mahri Stainnak had both served in the federal government for more than a decade. In 2025, Goggin quit her job while Stainnak was fired. Politics Under Trump, 317,000 workers are out of the government. Here are 3 of their stories Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025. Politics Trump is proposing big budget cuts — except for defense and the border The dramatic growth came in the same year that the Trump administration sharply reduced the number of federal workers, firing thousands of employees and inviting many more to resign. What else will the new funds be spent on? With base level funding for DHS and ICE due to expire at the end of January, Democrats in Congress are calling for changes to how ICE operates. It comes after a year in which deaths of people in ICE custody spiked to the highest levels in decades, with ICE reporting seven deaths in December, and three more in 2026, as of Jan. 16. ICE's increased budget makes sense to Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the right-wing Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group advocating for lower levels of immigration. He says the funding boost " is directly commensurate with the size of the task the agency is addressing." Dan Stein poses for a portrait at his home in Rockville, Md., on Tuesday, May 13, 2025. National From the fringes to the mainstream: Meet the hard-line anti-immigration activist who helped shape Trump's agenda "ICE exists to find and remove people who are in the country illegally," Mehlman said, referring to a category that grew when the Trump administration stripped legal status from 1.6 million immigrants in 2025. The focus of the new spending reflects President Trump's emphasis on arrests and removals, said Margy O'Herron, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center's liberty and national security program who worked at the DOJ in the Biden administration. O'Herron said she agrees with the idea that, for years, a reasonable case could be made that DHS agencies such as ICE and CBP needed more money. But other parts of the immigration system aren't getting as much help, she said. "All of the money is going to enforcement to arrest, to detain and to deport," she said. "It's not going to things like immigration hearings or immigration judges, to conduct additional review of whether or not somebody should be in the country. And that is a real problem for the system." For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Immigration Lawsuit Filed To Protect H-1B Spouses

A new immigration lawsuit aims to protect the spouses of H-1B visa holders likely to lose work authorization under a new federal rule. The rule ended the automatic extension of employment authorization documents and could lead to employers removing workers from payroll due to expected delays in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processing. Analysts view the rule as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the labor supply by restricting nearly all elements of the U.S. immigration system. In Donald Trump’s first term, USCIS put a rule on the agenda to end work authorization for H-4 spouses and set up new policies that created enormous delays in approving work permits for the spouses. Employment authorization documents allow individuals to work lawfully in the United States. While a lawful permanent resident or naturalized citizen has the right to work, a temporary visa holder or other “nonimmigrant” must have employment authorization. To address long processing delays for employment authorization documents, or EADs, the Biden administration published a rule allowing a 540-day automatic extension if USCIS did not complete processing an EAD application before the work permit expired. The new Trump administration rule overturned that regulation for new applications. The complaint argues the rule was unlawful. Other recent actions to restrict high-skilled individuals and other temporary visa holders include imposing a $100,000 fee on the entry of new H-1B visa holders and a rule restricting international students by replacing the current “duration of status” policy with fixed admission periods. PROMOTED The Lawsuit Against The Immigration Rule Ending Automatic Extensions A complaint filed on behalf of seven dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders alleges the Department of Homeland Security published an unlawful rule on October 30, 2025. DHS published an interim final rule, which means the agency did not go through the normal notice and comment rulemaking process. Jon Wasden of Wasden Law and San Marino, California-based attorney Justin Tseng represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed on Jan. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. The lawsuit’s goal, Wasden said in an interview, is for a judge to vacate the rule nationwide and for USCIS to return to automatic extensions of employment authorization documents. The complaint makes several arguments. First, the plaintiffs explain that the Biden administration’s rule on automatic extension resulted from actions taken during Donald Trump’s first term that caused long delays for processing extensions of EADs. DHS, through USCIS, established biometric requirements that plaintiffs in an earlier lawsuit alleged were designed to deprive H-1B spouses of their ability to work. MORE FOR YOU U.S. Immigration Service Issues Guidance On Who Pays The $100,000 H-1B Fee New Trump Immigration Policy: Ending The H-1B Visa Lottery Trump Deals A New Immigration Blow To International Students Frase By Forbes In 2022, DHS settled a class action lawsuit, Edakunni v. Mayorkas. As part of the lawsuit, DHS stopped the re-collection of biometrics (DHS had already collected biometrics for the applicants at least once) and returned to processing applications for an H-1B visa holder and his or her spouse at the same time. The agency also published a rule in May 2022 that provided automatic extensions up to 540 days for EADs. Second, the plaintiffs argue that the Oct. 30 interim final rule is “high on platitudinal invocations of national security concerns, but exceedingly low on a factual predicate showing a threat exists, or that the rule will address the threat.” According to the complaint, “The only factual support listed for the national security claims is a non sequitur: an individual in the U.S. pursuant to a lawful status threw a Molotov cocktail at a pro-Palestine rally, while his status extension and EAD renewal were pending.” CEO: C-suite news, analysis, and advice for top decision makers right to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to receive this newsletter, other updates about Forbes and its affiliates’ offerings, our Terms of Service (including resolving disputes on an individual basis via arbitration), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The plaintiffs assert there is no “nexus” explained between the Molotov cocktail and the EAD’s auto extension. “Afterall, even if EAD auto extension was not available, the cocktail thrower would have still been legally in the country and able to attend the event and commit the offense.” Third, the complaint alleges that DHS “intentionally misrepresents the process” by implying that the agency only vets foreign nationals when USCIS adjudicates a benefit. According to the plaintiffs, “In fact, DHS developed and employed the capacity to screen and vet individuals continuously via the ATLAS system and the Continuous Immigration Vetting programs, which are not discussed in the IFR [interim final rule].” Fourth, the plaintiffs write, “When, in cases like this, the agency does an about face and promulgates a rule that completely contradicts a prior regulation heightened standards are applied.” They also note, “When abandoning a rule, the agency is required to acknowledge reliance interests created by the prior rule. A rule that ignores those interests would be arbitrary and capricious.” The complaint argues failing to vacate the rule will harm the U.S. economy: “The spouses of specialty occupation workers are typically highly educated with professional ambitions and achievements that often match or surpass their H-1B spouses. The National Foundation for American Policy analysis of data indicates that nearly 90% of H4 visa holders have at least a bachelor’s degree, and almost half have a graduate or doctorate degree.” Attorneys for the spouses of H-1B visa holders hope the judge shares their views about the immigration policy that lies behind the DHS rule. “The administration’s true rationale, stripping the ability of people lawfully in the U.S. of the ability to sustain themselves, is embarrassingly obvious.” For more information, visit us at For more information, visit us at.

5 takeaways from new polls of the Minneapolis ICE shooting

After an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis one week ago, reactions on social media and among politicians and political influencers rapidly polarized. But how do the rest of Americans – i.e. those who didn’t so quickly weigh in – feel? We’ve now got a better sense, thanks to three high-quality polls released in the last 24 hours – including a new poll from CNN. Here are a few things we can say. 1. Americans side against ICE You could have been forgiven for thinking the ICE shooting would be a 50-50 issue – or close to it. But it’s not. The CNN poll shows 56% of US adults said the ICE agent’s use of force was “inappropriate,” compared to just 26% who said it was “appropriate.” Similarly, Quinnipiac University and Yahoo News-YouGov polls released Tuesday tested whether people thought the shooting was “justified.” The former showed registered voters said it was “not justified” by 53%-35%, while the latter showed Americans said it wasn’t justified 52%-27%. People march during a demonstration against increased immigration enforcement, days after the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. People march during a demonstration against increased immigration enforcement, days after the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Tim Evans/Reuters So three polls, all with margins of between 18 and 30 points against ICE. That’s a pretty decisive verdict in public opinion. Each poll showed independents said the shooting was wrong by at least a 2-to-1 margin. And Democrats were significantly more likely to object (87% in the CNN poll) than Republicans were to stand by the ICE agent (61%). Most everything the Trump administration is doing these days is unpopular. But these numbers suggest ICE’s use of force is more unpopular than most. And it’s not even as if Trump supporters are united. 2. Just one-quarter echo the administration’s ‘domestic terrorism’ claim But it’s worth emphasizing that the Trump administration didn’t just say the ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, was justified in shooting Good. It went quite a bit further, immediately casting Good’s actions as “domestic terrorism” and saying she intentionally targeted the ICE agent with her car. It’s looking pretty clear that that is out of step with the public’s interpretation of events. The Yahoo-YouGov poll shows just 24% of Americans said Good was committing domestic terrorism. Only 52% of Republicans agreed with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on that. Some in the administration have occasionally seemed to walk back Noem’s claim, allowing that perhaps Good didn’t deliberately target the officer. “Look, I don’t know what’s in a person’s heart or in a person’s head,” Vice President JD Vance conceded last week when pressed on Good’s intent 3. The story has really penetrated In case there was any doubt how big this news was, the polls show Americans are overwhelmingly paying close attention. The Yahoo poll showed 63% said they had heard “a lot” about the situation. And the Quinnipiac poll showed 82% of voters said they’d seen a video of the shooting. Those are huge numbers in an American public that often tunes out political news. For instance, even after the US ousted a foreign leader (Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro) earlier this month, just 42% in a Reuters-Ipsos poll said they had heard “a lot” about it. Marquette University Law School regularly asked such questions throughout 2025. Out of dozens of news events tested, only a handful garnered that much attention. 4. Signs of a growing problem for the administration Indeed, the danger in this episode for the administration is not just that Americans disagree with its posture on the ICE agent. As I wrote last week, the political risk is that this becomes a flashpoint in the debate over ICE and President Donald Trump’s deportation campaign. ICE and Trump’s deportations have polled poorly for a while now, but we haven’t seen a huge backlash in Congress or the streets. In recent days, we’ve started to see some key influencers like Joe Rogan more vocally criticizing the ICE raids. Rogan, who supported Trump in 2024, likened ICE’s actions to the “Gestapo.” The new polls show ICE’s overall numbers haven’t changed much; people disliked the way the agency is enforcing immigration laws before the Minneapolis shooting (57%-39% in a July Quinnipiac poll), and they still dislike it today (57%-40%). But the numbers also suggest the episode could add some urgency to the public’s pre-existing concerns about Trump’s deportations. The CNN poll asked a follow-up for those who labeled the shooting “inappropriate.” It asked whether they believed this was just an isolated incident or whether it “reflects bigger problems with the way ICE is operating.” Fully 9 in 10 critics of this episode chose the latter. So a 51% majority of Americans said not only that the ICE agent’s actions were wrong in this situation, but they attached it to more systemic problems with the agency. Also striking were a pair of poll findings testing views of ICE raids overall: Americans said 51%-31% that ICE’s enforcement actions are making cities “less safe” rather than “more safe,” per the CNN poll. They also said 54%-34% that ICE raids in major US cities are “doing more harm than good,” per the Yahoo poll. That’s two polls showing people think these raids are actually counter-productive – both by 20-point margins. We’ve seen evidence before that Americans think Trump overreached with his deportations and don’t like his administration’s tactics. But not necessarily like this. 5. Noem’s approval is slipping amid nascent impeachment push US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem speaks during a press conference to discuss ICE operations in New York on January 8. US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem speaks during a press conference to discuss ICE operations in New York on January 8. TIMOTHY A.CLARY/AFP/AFP via Getty Images There’s a budding movement in the Democratic Party to potentially target Noem for impeachment. The polls suggest her political stock is declining. Americans disapproved of Noem 61%-38% in the CNN poll and registered voters disapproved 52%-36% in the Quinnipiac poll. The latter suggested Noem has lost ground in recent months. A July Quinnipiac poll showed Noem 11 points underwater (50%-39%), compared to 16 points underwater today. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

US will suspend immigrant visa processing from 75 countries over public assistance concerns

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Wednesday it will suspend the processing of immigrant visas for citizens of 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Somalia, whose nationals the Trump administration has deemed likely to require public assistance while living in the United States. The State Department, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, said it had instructed consular officers to halt immigrant visa applications from the countries affected in accordance with a broader order issued in November that tightened rules around potential immigrants who might become “public charges” in the U.S. The step builds on earlier immigration and travel bans by the administration on nearly 40 countries and is part of President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to tighten U.S. entry standards for foreigners. “The Trump administration is bringing an end to the abuse of America’s immigration system by those who would extract wealth from the American people,” the department said in a statement. “Immigrant visa processing from these 75 countries will be paused while the State Department reassess immigration processing procedures to prevent the entry of foreign nationals who would take welfare and public benefits.” The suspension, which will begin Jan. 21, will not apply to applicants seeking non-immigrant visas, or temporary tourist or business visas, who make up the vast majority of visa seekers. Demand for non-immigrant visas is expected to rise dramatically in the coming months and years due to the upcoming 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics both of which the U.S. will host or co-host. Cable calls for screening of non-immigrant visa applicants A separate notice sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates said that non-immigrant visa applicants should be screened for the possibility that they might seek public benefits in the United States. “With the uncovering of massive public benefits fraud across the United States, the Trump administration is laser-focused on eliminating and preventing fraud in public benefits programs,” said the cable that referred specifically to most non-immigrant visa applications and was sent on Monday. The cable, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, urged consular officers to ensure that foreigners wanting to travel to the U.S. “have been fully vetted and screened” for whether they may rely on public services before they are issued a visa. The cable noted several times that it is up to the applicant to prove that they would not apply for public benefits while in the U.S. and said consular officers who suspect the applicant might apply should require them to fill out a form proving their financial bona fides. President Donald Trump’s administration has already severely restricted immigrant and non-immigrant visa processing for citizens of dozens of countries, many of them in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Consular officials must consider a range of personal details The November guidance on which Wednesday’s decision is based directed U.S. Embassy and consulate officials to comprehensively and thoroughly vet visa applicants to demonstrate that they will not need to rely on public benefits from the government any time after their admission in the U.S. While federal law already required those seeking permanent residency or legal status to prove they wouldn’t be a public charge, Trump in his first term widened the range of benefit programs that could disqualify applicants, and the guidelines in the cable appear to go further in scope. Immigrants seeking entry into the U.S. already undergo a medical exam by a physician who’s been approved by a U.S. Embassy. They are screened for communicable diseases, like tuberculosis, and asked to disclose any history of drug or alcohol use, mental health conditions or violence. They’re also required to have a number of vaccinations. The new directive expanded those with more specific requirements. It said consular officials must consider a range of specific details about people seeking visas, including their age, health, family status, finances, education, skills and any past use of public assistance regardless of the country. It also said they should assess applicants’ English proficiency and can do so by conducting interviews in English. Experts said at the time it could further limit who gets to enter the country at a time when the Republican administration is already tightening those rules. The countries affected by the suspension announced on Wednesday are: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan and Yemen. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

DHS announces termination of protected status for Somalis after group targeted by Trump

The Trump administration announced Tuesday it will end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalis in March, effectively forcing as many as 2,400 people out of the U.S., despite the president's remarks last month that Somalia was "barely a country." Somali migrants with TPS will be required to leave the country by March 17, Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced Tuesday. That is, unless a court pauses the TPS revocation. "Temporary means temporary," Noem wrote in a statement to ABC News. "Country conditions in Somalia have improved to the point that it no longer meets the law's requirement for Temporary Protected Status. Further, allowing Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to our national interests. We are putting Americans first." In this Nov. 17, 2025, file photo, President Donald Trump, is shown with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, at a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C. Win McNamee/Getty Images, FILE The move comes after President Donald Trump has recently criticized Somali immigrants, describing them as "garbage" and saying he doesn't want them in the United States during a Cabinet meeting last month. "We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they're good at is going after ships," Trump said as he addressed supporters in Pennsylvania last month. Trump describes Somali immigrants as 'garbage' amid feud with Minnesota congresswoman, governor The president doubled down on his criticism of the Somali community on Tuesday and threatened to denaturalize anyone convicted of fraud. "We've got a lot of them out already, but we're getting them out. We're also going to revoke the citizenship of any naturalized immigrant from Somalia, or anywhere else, who is convicted of defrauding our citizens," he said during an event in Detroit. "We're going to get them the hell out of here fast." DHS made a reference to Tuesday's announcement in an X post that had a black and white photo of Trump in the Oval Office that referenced the 2013 movie "Captain Phillips," which dramatized the 2009 merchant boat hostage situation by Somali pirates. "I am the captain now," DHS wrote in the post. TPS is given to nationals of select countries who are unable to return home safely due to conditions such as famine, war and environmental disasters. Immigrants who have TPS designation can not be removed by DHS and are given an Eligible for an Employment Authorization Document that allows them to legally work in the U.S. Somalis in Minnesota say ICE agents already targeting their community Somalia has been under a TPS designation since 1991, when civil war broke out and displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians. It has been renewed several times over the last 34 years as the conflict has grown. The State Department currently has a travel advisory -- in effect since May of last year -- warning people not to travel to Somalia due to "crime, terrorism, civil unrest, health, kidnapping, piracy" and other issues. Noem did not go into further detail about her description of improved conditions in Somalia, which appear to contradict the State Department's advisory. In this Oct. 8, 2025, file photo, President Donald Trump listens to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speak during a roundtable in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images, FILE Immigration attorneys who spoke with ABC News Tuesday criticized DHS's claim that conditions in Somalia have improved. "That statement is really belied and contradicted by the facts on the ground," Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told ABC News. "The State Department's own website warns that the country continues to see terrorism, violent crime and civil unrest." Chen said that conditions in Somalia have worsened, pointing to the escalating conflict between the federal government and the terrorist group Al-Shabaab. In this Nov. 11, 2025, file photo, Somali soldiers are shown near armored personnel carriers, in Sabiid Canole, Somalia. Jackson Njehia/AP, FILE "To suggest that it is safe for Somali nationals to be forced to return to a country with an active military conflict doesn't make sense from a safety consideration, or from the statutory requirements for TPS established by Congress," Chen said. Chen said that while some individuals may qualify for legal status through family members or other forms of relief, many others will be left without a lawful path to remain in the country. David Wilson, an immigration attorney in Minnesota who represents Somali TPS holders, told ABC News that some clients who have lived in the U.S. since the late 1990s now face potential deportation. "There are also people who arrived more recently to escape the growing threat of Al-Shabaab who are now truly fearful," Wilson said. Wilson argued that the administration is "trying to sell a vision of a much different country than the rest of the world knows to be true." PHOTO: Protesters march through frigid conditions, with temperatures near 10 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 12 Celsius), in a neighborhood in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Dec. 20, 2025. Protesters march through frigid conditions, with temperatures near 10 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 12 Celsius), in a neighborhood in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Dec. 20, 2025, where many Somali, Latino and Hispanic immigrants live and work, during the "MN Love Our Immigrant Neighbors - ICE Out of MN!" rally calling for the removal of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement from Minnesota. Kerem Yucel/AFP via Getty Images, FILE As of 2024, there are nearly 260,000 Americans of Somali descent living in the U.S, according to the census. Of that population, more than 115,000 are foreign-born and more than 93,000 -- or more than 80% -- of the foreign-born population are naturalized U.S. citizens, according to the census data. Trump has repeatedly bashed the American Somali community, particularly the ones living in Minnesota, which has the largest share of Somali nationals in the country, according to the census. As of Tuesday, there are 2,471 Somali nationals currently in the U.S. under TPS, with 1,383 in the country with pending TPS applications, a source with knowledge of the data told ABC News. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has slammed Trump for his comments targeting Somalis. "We've got little children going to school today, who their president called them 'garbage,'" Walz said at an event last month. Trump has repeated his criticisms against the Somali community following reports of fraud in the state, allegedly perpetrated by Somali immigrants against Minnesota's social services system. Trump ramps up anti-immigrant rhetoric, embraces 's---hole countries' phrase The allegations are being investigated; Minnesota officials have disputed the allegations. The Trump administration has revoked and refused to renew TPS protections for several countries since he took office last year -- including for Venezuelan nationals. However, those decisions have been fought in court cases that have argued that DHS has made its moves in part by racial animus, citing the president and Noem's rhetoric. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Four migrants die in US immigration custody over first 10 days of 2026 By Ted Hesson

Trump administration increases migrant detentions, aims for more deportations DHS says death rate aligns with historic norms amid rising detentions WASHINGTON, Jan 12 (Reuters) - Four migrants died while in custody of U.S. immigration authorities over the first 10 days of 2026, according to government press releases, a loss of life that followed record detention deaths last year under President Donald Trump. The deaths included two migrants from Honduras, one from Cuba and another from Cambodia, and occurred from January 3-9, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here. Advertisement · Scroll to continue The Trump administration aims to ramp up deportations and has increased the number of migrants in detention. As of January 7, ICE statistics showed that the agency was detaining 69,000 people. The numbers were expected to rise following a massive ICE funding infusion passed by the U.S. Congress last year. At least 30 people died in ICE custody in 2025, the highest level in two decades, agency figures showed. Setareh Ghandehari, advocacy director at Detention Watch Network, called the high number of deaths "truly staggering" and urged the administration to shutter detention centers. U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said the rate of deaths had remained in step with historic norms as the detention population has climbed. Advertisement · Scroll to continue “As bed space has expanded, we have maintained (a) higher standard of care than most prisons that hold U.S. citizens — including providing access to proper medical care," McLaughlin said. The Cuban detainee, Geraldo Lunas Campos, 55, died on January 3 in Camp East Montana, a detention site opened by the Trump administration on the grounds of Fort Bliss in Texas. ICE said it was investigating the death of Lunas, adding that officials said he had become disruptive and placed him in isolation. Officials later found him in distress, and emergency medical technicians pronounced him dead, ICE said. The two Honduran men - Luis Gustavo Nunez Caceres, 42, and Luis Beltran Yanez–Cruz, 68 - died in area hospitals in Houston and Indio, California, on January 5 and 6, respectively, both following heart-related issues, ICE said. Parady La, a Cambodian man, 46, died on January 9 following severe drug withdrawal symptoms at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, ICE said. The administration began using that space last year, it said. The Trump administration has greatly reduced the number of migrants released from detention on humanitarian grounds, a move critics say has driven some to accept deportation. In addition to the in-custody deaths, an ICE officer fatally shot a Minnesota mother of three last week, an incident that sparked protests in Minneapolis and cities around the country. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Nationwide anti-ICE protests call for accountability after Renee Good's death

People took to the streets in cities across the country this weekend to protest the Trump administration's immigration enforcement tactics following the death of Renee Good in Minneapolis, a 37-year-old woman who was shot and killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer last week. At least 1,000 events across the U.S. were planned for Saturday and Sunday, according to Indivisible, a progressive grassroots coalition of activists helping coordinate the movement it calls "ICE Out For Good Weekend of Action." Leah Greenberg, a co-executive director of Indivisible, said people are coming together to "grieve, honor those we've lost, and demand accountability from a system that has operated with impunity for far too long." Sponsor Message National The latest updates on the Minneapolis ICE shooting "Renee Nicole Good was a wife, a mother of three, and a member of her community. She, and the dozens of other sons, daughters, friends, siblings, parents, and community members who have been killed by ICE, should be alive today," Greenberg said in a statement on Friday. "ICE's violence is not a statistic, it has names, families, and futures attached to it, and we refuse to look away or stay silent." Large crowds of demonstrators carried signs and shouted "ICE out now!" during protests across Minneapolis on Saturday. One of those protesters, Cameron Kritikos, told NPR that he is worried that the presence of more ICE agents in the city could lead to more violence or another death. "If more ICE officers are deployed to the streets, especially a place here where there's very clear public opposition to the terrorizing of our neighborhoods, I'm nervous that there's going to be more violence," the 31-year grocery store worker said. "I'm nervous that there are going to be more clashes with law enforcement officials, and at the end of the day I think that's not what anyone wants." Demonstrators in Minneapolis on Saturday, Jan. 10, 2026. Demonstrators in Minneapolis on Saturday. Sergio Martínez-Beltrán/NPR The night before, hundreds of city and state police officers responded to a "noise protest" in downtown Minneapolis. An estimated 1,000 people gathered Friday night, according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara, and 29 people were arrested. National ICE shootings are a 'direct byproduct' of tactic shift, ex-ICE acting director says People demonstrated outside of hotels where ICE agents were believed to be staying. They chanted, played drums and banged pots. O'Hara said that a group of people split from the main protest and began damaging hotel windows. One police officer was injured from a chunk of ice that was hurled at officers, he added. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey condemned acts of violence but praised what he said were the "vast majority" of protesters who remained peaceful, during a morning news conference. Sponsor Message "To anyone who causes property damage or puts others in danger: you will be arrested. We are standing up to Donald Trump's chaos not with our own brand of chaos, but with care and unity," Frey wrote on social media. Commenting on the protests, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told NPR in a statement, "the First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly — not rioting, assault and destruction," adding, "DHS is taking measures to uphold the rule of law and protect public safety and our officers." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Sunday said the agency was sending "hundreds more" federal agents to Minneapolis Sunday and Monday to protect ICE agents. "If they [protesters] conduct violent activities against law enforcement, if they impede our operations, that's a crime, and we will hold them accountable to those consequences," Noem told Fox News. Good was killed the day after DHS launched a large-scale immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota set to deploy 2,000 immigration officers to the state. Young students march near Kenny Community School in Minneapolis a day after an ICE agent shot and killed a 37-year-old woman on Thursday, Jan. 8, 2026. The Picture Show Photos: Protests grow over the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis In Philadelphia, police estimated about 500 demonstrators "were cooperative and peaceful" at a march that began Saturday morning at City Hall, Philadelphia Police Department spokesperson Tanya Little told NPR in a statement. No arrests were made. In Portland, Ore., demonstrators rallied and lined the streets outside of a hospital on Saturday afternoon, where immigration enforcement agents bring detainees who are injured during an arrest, reported Oregon Public Broadcasting. A man and woman were shot and injured by U.S. Border Patrol agents on Thursday in the city. DHS said the shooting happened during a targeted vehicle stop and identified the driver as Luis David Nino-Moncada, and the passenger as Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras, both from Venezuela. As was the case in their assertion about Good's fatal shooting, Homeland Security officials claimed the federal agent acted in self-defense after Nino-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras "weaponized their vehicle." Activists participate in a protest prior to a march to the headquarters of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Sunday in Washington, D.C. Activists participate in a protest prior to a march to the headquarters of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Sunday in Washington, D.C. Alex Wong/Getty Images Protests also continued Sunday, including in Atlanta, Washington, D.C., and New York City. Sponsor Message Crowds gathered across the metro Atlanta area, including on the 17th Street bridge, where demonstrators held signs that read "Stop ICE Terror Now" and "ICE out 4 good," according to local media reports. In Washington, D.C., a day after protesters gathered in front of the White House on Saturday, demonstrators marched to ICE headquarters on Sunday. There were no arrests during the protests, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police Department told NPR on Sunday. A large crowd of demonstrators also marched in New York City on Sunday, according to PIX11. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

What is ICE and what powers do its agents have to use force?

The fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis has sparked protests and placed increased scrutiny on the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). ICE has made thousands of arrests since Trump returned to the White House, often in public settings. Those actions have increasingly brought its agents into communities across the country, leading to resistance from some local residents who oppose their operations. What is ICE and when was it formed? ICE is taking the lead in carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation initiative, which was a central promise of Donald Trump's election campaign. The US president has significantly expanded ICE, its budget and its mission since returning to the White House. The agency enforces immigration laws and conducts investigations into undocumented immigration. It also plays a role in removing undocumented immigrants from the US. ICE was formed as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, a response to the terror attacks on 11 September 2001. The legislation created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with ICE as one of its subsidiary agencies. What powers do ICE agents have to arrest people? ICE sees its mission as encompassing both public safety and national security. However, its powers are different than the average local police department in the US. Its agents have the power to stop, detain and arrest people they suspect of being in the US illegally. They can detain US citizens in limited circumstances, such as if a person interferes with an arrest, assaults an officer, or ICE suspect the person of being in the US illegally. Despite this, according to news organisation ProPublica, there were more than 170 incidents during the first nine months of Trump's presidency in which federal agents held US citizens against their will. These cases included Americans they had suspected of being undocumented immigrants. Getty Images A bullet hole is seen in the windshield of a vehicle involved in a shooting by an ICE agent during federal law enforcement operations on 7 January 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Two police officers stand in the foreground, out of focus.Getty Images An ICE officer shot Renee Good while she was driving a car What powers does ICE have to use force? ICE's use of force actions are governed by a combination of the US Constitution, US law and the Department of Homeland Security's own policy guidelines. Under the US constitution, law enforcement "can only use deadly force if the person poses a serious danger to them or other people, or the person has committed a violent crime", said Chris Slobogin, director of the criminal justice programme at Vanderbilt University Law School. But the US Supreme Court has historically granted broad leniency to officers making in-the-moment decisions without the benefit of hindsight. A DHS policy memo from 2023 states that federal officers "may use deadly force only when necessary" when they have "a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury" to themself or another person. Where does ICE operate? Typically, ICE operates inside the US, with some staffing abroad. Its sister agency, US Customs and Border Protection, technically patrols the US borders. But those roles have become increasingly blurred, as the Trump administration pulled agents from a range of federal law enforcement agencies to participate in immigration enforcement. Border Patrol officers increasingly operate within the US, taking part in raids with ICE. ICE and other agencies have deployed hundreds of officers to cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and now Minneapolis, in partnership with other federal law enforcement agencies. As many as 2,000 federal officers will deploy to Minneapolis as part of the latest operation, the Associated Press reported. What happens to people who are detained by ICE? The scale of Trump-era deportations have been significant. The administration said it had deported 605,000 people between 20 January and 10 December 2025. It also said 1.9 million immigrants had "voluntarily self-deported", following an aggressive public awareness campaign encouraging people to leave the country on their own to avoid arrest or detention. An immigrant who encounters ICE can face a variety of outcomes. Sometimes an individual is temporarily held, then released after questioning. In other circumstances, ICE will detain and transfer that person to a larger detention facility, of which there are several throughout the US. While many immigrants continue to fight for legal status while detained, if they are unsuccessful, they may ultimately be deported. About 65,000 people were in ICE detention as of 30 November 2025, according to data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse's immigration project, a compendium of government data from Syracuse University. Immigration lawyers have told the BBC that, once ICE detains an individual, it can sometimes take days for families or lawyers to find out where they are. Getty Images People demonstrate against ICE during a vigil honouring a woman who was shot and killed by an immigration officer earlier in the day in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on 7 January. Protesters carry signs that say "ICE OUT".Getty Images People demonstrate against ICE during a vigil honouring Renee Good, who was shot and killed by an immigration officer What are the criticisms of ICE and what opposition have its agents met? Many communities have pushed back when ICE and partner agencies like the Border Patrol carry out operations. It is now common for residents to film ICE agents as they carry out arrests. Some encounters between ICE and the public have become aggressive or violent. During ICE operations in Chicago, Illinois, a collective of media organisations sued the Border Patrol. They alleged agents used improper force against journalists, religious leaders and protesters. A federal judge sided with the group, before an appeals court overturned the decision. The Minneapolis shooting is not the first time an individual has been injured by gunfire during an immigration enforcement operation. There were two incidents in Los Angeles in October in which agents shot at drivers, the Los Angeles Times reported. DHS said in both instances that the drivers had threatened the officers with their vehicles. ICE officers, and other immigration agents, have been criticised for wearing masks while carrying out their operations. DHS officials have defended the practice, saying it protects agents from doxing or harassment. Where do Americans stand on ICE and deportations? Americans have a complicated view of Trump's immigration enforcement plans, polling suggests. A little more than half believe some level of deportation is necessary, an October 2025 survey from the non-partisan Pew Research Center suggested. That's roughly the same number as Pew found the previous March. But the same poll suggests that Americans have concerns about Trump's methods. It found that a majority of US adults - 53% - believed the Trump administration was doing "too much" to deport undocumented immigrants. About 36% backed the approach. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Hundreds of judges reject Trump’s mandatory detention policy, with no end in sight

Federal judges are increasingly exasperated by the Trump administration’s effort to lock up nearly everyone facing deportation proceedings — a draconian expansion of decades-old policies that hundreds of courts have rejected as illegal or unconstitutional. More than 300 federal judges, including appointees of every president since Ronald Reagan, have now rebuffed the administration’s six-month-old effort to expand its so-called “mandatory detention” policy, according to a POLITICO analysis of court dockets from across the country. Those judges have ordered immigrants’ release or the opportunity for bond hearings in more than 1,600 cases. 00:01 02:00 Read More And dozens more federal judges have ordered the administration to release immigrants yanked off the street without due process or held for prolonged periods even though no country has agreed to accept them. The legal rejections are so frequent that one judge compared the Trump administration’s effort to Sisyphus rolling a rock uphill. Others have become so familiar with the cases that they’ve begun issuing terse, carbon-copy rulings to dispense with the deluge. Immigrant advocates say the administration’s win-loss record is beside the point; the goal appears to be making the process so onerous that many choose to give up rather than face weeks or months of detention. Despite the overwhelming legal consensus, there has been no successful nationwide block on the policy. That’s partly because most of the cases are filed on an emergency basis by individuals in the hours after they’re arrested — with little time to assemble large groups that could mount a broad challenge. In recent weeks, the judges’ conclusions have become increasingly urgent, describing shocking mistreatment and inhumanity as thousands of people — the majority not charged with any crime — are abruptly ripped from family members and locked up in squalid detention centers, even if they have lived in the country for decades. Many have been arrested while attending required immigration court proceedings or check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that they had attended for decades. “This district has been flooded with petitions for relief with similar stories — families ripped apart, and people who pose no danger or risk of fleeing imprisoned with no end in sight, flown to far off detention centers for reasons that the government lawyers who appear in court themselves can’t explain,” U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian wrote in a Dec. 23 opinion. “And that doesn’t account for the countless people picked up off the streets who don’t have lawyers and who can’t effectively seek relief.” “No one disputes that the government may, consistent with the law’s requirements, pursue the removal of people who are in this country unlawfully. But the way we treat others matters,” the New York-based Biden appointee continued. Subramanian’s ruling is one of hundreds issued by judges since July 8, when ICE revised its policies to conclude that virtually anyone in the country unlawfully was subject to detention — without the possibility of release on bond — while awaiting deportation proceedings. That decision reversed 30 years of practice by federal immigration authorities, who prioritized detention only for people deemed to be dangerous or likely to flee. In recent weeks, the legal challenges have surged, with more than 100 new lawsuits filed daily, a figure that has steadily increased. Courts overwhelmingly reject the policy A POLITICO review of thousands of federal dockets reveals the starkly lopsided results for the Trump administration: While 308 judges have ruled against the administration’s mass detention policy — ordering release or bond hearings in more than 1,600 cases — just 14 judges, including 11 appointed by President Donald Trump himself, have sided with the administration’s position. Even Trump’s appointees have rejected the administration’s view; 33 have ruled against its position on mass detention. The rejections have come predominantly from judges appointed by Joe Biden (103), Barack Obama (97) and Bill Clinton (27). In addition to the 33 Trump-appointed judges, the list includes 48 appointed by Presidents George. W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. And the numbers are likely to continue surging until federal appeals courts — or perhaps the Supreme Court — settle the matter conclusively, at least in large swathes of the country. The administration has appealed dozens of its defeats, but appellate courts are unlikely to resolve the matter for months, even on expedited timelines. The Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently signaled that it opposed the administration’s view on mandatory detention, but the ruling was primarily about the administration’s handling of a class action lawsuit dating to 2018. Department of Homeland Security officials have argued that they’re exercising maximal detention authority that other administrations simply chose not to employ. They say it’s an antidote to years of “catch-and-release” policies by the Biden administration, a practice in which immigrants crossing the border were briefly detained and then paroled into the country. “Regarding decisions from federal courts about mandatory detention, judicial activists … have been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court on these questions,” Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. “ICE has the law and the facts on its side, and it adheres to all court decisions until it ultimately gets them shot down by the highest court in the land.” What does the law require? At issue is a tension in the complex and tangled U.S. immigration laws that has vexed courts for decades. Federal law mandates detention for immigrants deemed to be “applicants for admission” to the U.S. who enter the country illegally; this has long been interpreted by courts and ICE to apply to people who only recently crossed the border. Watch: The Conversation Play Video20:23 The top 5 interview moments of 2025 | The Conversation Immigrants who have lived in the country for decades, on the other hand, have been subject to detention only if they are deemed a danger to society or a flight risk. And they have been afforded the right to bond hearings before immigration judges — executive branch officials tasked with adjudicating immigration cases, a system distinct from the federal judiciary. But ICE now contends that immigrants living in the country for years should still be considered “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention, even if no previous administration agreed. In October, the Board of Immigration Appeals — the executive branch body that oversees immigration judges — sided with the Trump administration’s view of mass detention, effectively requiring detention for immigrants targeted by the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. That decision has prompted a furious rush to federal courts. The flood of litigation that included a nationwide class action that appeared poised to resolve the matter. But ambiguities in that ruling — issued by U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes, a Biden appointee based in California — led the Trump administration to continue attempting to lock up most deportees without bond. Some Trump appointees side with him A handful of judges have recently sided with the administration’s view. U.S. District Judge Jodi Dishman, a Trump appointee from Oklahoma, said the vast majority of courts were going too far in concluding that immigrants living in the U.S. were no longer “applicants for admission.” And she questioned how judges were drawing the line. “Is two years of unadmitted residence long enough? Three? How far must an alien travel from the border? 50 miles? 100?” Dishman wondered. “If an alien has been in the interior a short time but resides far away from the border, can the distance make up for a short duration?” Even as she sided with the administration, Dishman acknowledged the consequences of her ruling: “The Court’s first duty is to the rule of law, and to misplace that duty would undermine our system of ordered liberty. The Court takes no solace in the human realities on the other end of its pen.” Another Trump appointee, Brian Buescher, recently ruled that even the nationwide class action granted by Sykes doesn’t prevent the administration from implementing its expanded detention policy. That class action, the Nebraska-based judge wrote, was beyond Sykes’ authority to issue. “The fact that a District Judge in California interpreted the law differently … does not somehow usurp or overrule all other judges in the United States Federal Courts, like this one, who see the issue differently,” Buescher ruled. A third Trump appointee, Louisiana’s Terry Doughty, recently flipped on the issue. Despite initially ruling against the Trump administration, Doughty said the Board of Immigration Appeals’ October decision was persuasive. Most Read Donald Trump holds an executive order and speaks with Linda McMahon. Trump’s next plan for the US education system: Lots and lots of rules Trump warns acting Venezuelan leader will ‘pay a big price’ if she doesn’t cooperate Trump’s Attack on Venezuela Could Change the World. Here’s How. 92-year-old judge handling Maduro case ‘doesn’t give a s--t what anyone thinks about him’ Trump on return trip to Washington predicts demise of Cuba, warns Colombia, threatens Greenland But even among Trump appointees, those rulings are an exception. Others, like Florida’s Kyle Dudek, Texas’ Jason Pulliam and Kentucky’s Rebecca Grady Jennings, have rejected ICE’s new policy. “The same wisdom that requires immigrants and noncitizens to follow the law equally requires the government to follow the law. That wasn’t done here,” wrote Damon Leichty, a Trump appointee based in Indiana, in a Dec. 30 ruling. Judges reject another detention policy Though the expansion of mandatory detention has flooded the courts with emergency litigation, it’s not the only aspect of the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy that has clogged court dockets. Another prominent culprit is the Trump administration’s decision to round up immigrants who have previously been ordered deported — sometimes years earlier — but whose home countries have refused to issue valid travel documents to effectuate their return. Though immigration officials are permitted to detain people in order to carry out their deportations, they can’t do so indefinitely. There’s no official legal limit, but the Supreme Court has blessed a six-month detention as “presumptively reasonable.” Yet judges across the country have found the Trump administration frequently violating these restrictions, holding people in detention without any country willing to accept them and no prospect for imminent deportation. This has led to a second surge of litigation and, in many cases, orders by judges requiring immigrants’ immediate release. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik last month ordered the release of a Vietnamese woman who was arrested at an ICE check-in in August even though the federal government has been unable, for 26 years, to obtain travel documents to return her to her home country. Lasnik noted that the woman’s son died by suicide in November and without release, she would be unable to attend his funeral. Other judges have ordered the release of people who have resided in the U.S. while fleeing persecution in Iran, Russia and other countries that rarely accept U.S. deportees. Subramanian’s blistering ruling came in the case of Aissatou Diallo, a 52-year-old woman from Guinea who was ordered deported in 2012 but could not be sent to her home country because an immigration judge concluded she was likely to face persecution there. “Fast forward to November 25, 2025. Without any notice, Diallo was taken out of the security line at LaGuardia Airport, arrested, and shipped off to Louisiana to be detained there until the government can find a country to send her to,” Subramanian wrote. “At the hearing on her … petition on December 5, 2025, Diallo appeared in a courtroom sullen and scared, in prison garb, and shackled. None of this had to happen. All of it is illegal.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Despair for would-be US citizens as American dream blocked by Trump

The occasion should have been marked by the joy of reaching the destination of US citizenship following the long odyssey of immigration. Instead, the ceremony at Boston’s Faneuil Hall – renowned as a “cradle of liberty” for its role as a protest hub in the run-up to the American revolution – felt like a nightmarish end of the road for some aspirant new Americans who had turned up full of hope. Before proceedings at this month’s event got under way, staff from the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) asked arrivals expecting to swear the oath of allegiance that would finally confirm them as citizens to state their country of origin. Gray-and-red graphic illustration of a person being detained, overlaid on a bar chart. By the numbers: the latest ICE and CBP data on arrests, detentions and deportations in the US Read more Those from nations included on a travel ban list announced by Donald Trump last summer were then excluded from taking part, despite having completed the years-long vetting process. Among the disappointed was a Haitian nursing assistant in her 50s who had lived in the US for nearly 25 years – denied what immigration specialists say is her legal right by a sudden policy change introduced by the Trump administration on “security” grounds. The woman declined an interview request. But Gail Breslow, executive director of Boston-based Project Citizenship – which had helped guide her citizenship application – said she was left devastated and distraught. “Our client hadn’t received USCIS’s written notification on time and turned up expecting to become a citizen,” Breslow said. “She told us she was not alone in this and the same thing happened to others. “The image of officers going down a line and asking people where they were born, and based on the answer that they gave, pulling them out of line and sending them home is gut-wrenching. “We had another client there the same day from Honduras who was allowed to take part and sent us pictures of his naturalization. People are holding little flags and it’s a image of pride and joy as people are surrounded by family members – the contrast between that and people being plucked out of line based on what country they’re from is the most un-American image I can conjure.” The scene has been replicated in venues elsewhere in response to a USCIS memorandum sent out on 5 December instructing that immigration proceedings be paused for the nationals of 19 countries on Trump’s ban list. The memo followed the shooting on 26 November of two national guard troops in Washington DC, allegedly by an Afghan national, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who had been granted asylum earlier this year by the Trump administration. “In light of identified concerns and the threat to the American people, USCIS has determined that a comprehensive re-review, potential interview, and re-interview of all aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021 is necessary,” read the memo, which cites the shooting of the national guards as a justification for the review. The memo prompted a flood of emails to applicants awaiting naturalization informing them that the ceremonies had been canceled. “This is to advise you that, due to unforeseen circumstances, we have had to cancel the previously scheduled Oath Ceremony on Wednesday, December 03,2025 at 12:30PM for the above applicant,” one typical email seen by the Guardian read. “We regret any inconvenience this may cause.” Advocacy groups report oath ceremonies being called off in Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Houston, St Louis, Omaha and elsewhere. “We have seen these cases now in over 16 cities, affecting nationalities that include Iranians, Haitian, Sudanese, Yemen, Venezuelan, Afghan, Sierra Leonean, Guinean, Libyan, just to name quickly some of the countries [proscribed],” said Greg Chen, senior director for government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. closeup of a hand holding a passport in a pocket ‘It’s sad we have to do this’: the US citizens carrying passports out of fear Read more Prohibitions also apply to green-card applicants and those applying for naturalization but who have not yet reached the stage of taking the oath of allegiance. “We’re talking about [the cancellation of] three types of things – green-card interviews, naturalization interviews and then … an oath ceremony where it’s kind of finalized,” said Chen. Most of those affected refuse to speak to the media, fearing that publicity could make them targets for reprisals or raids carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents enforcing Trump’s immigration agenda, which has been marked by mass deportations of undocumented people. However, a Libyan doctor – emailing the Guardian anonymously at the request of his lawyer – said his green-card application had been halted despite having worked in the US for 10 years after entering on an O-1/EB-1 (extraordinary ability) visa. “I never imagined that in the United States I would be targeted because of my nationality and religious background, particularly by the authorities,” wrote the doctor, whose medical work is focused on developing AI diagnostic and treatment tools for lung cancer. “I invested years of relentless effort in this journey … I pursued the American dream in good faith, believing in this country as a land of opportunity. skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to This Week in Trumpland Free newsletter A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration Enter your email address Marketing preferences Get updates about our journalism and ways to support and enjoy our work. Sign up Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion “Now, as I reach the final stages of my permanent residency process, an expensive and lengthy process, my future appears jeopardized solely because of my country of origin. I can’t describe to you the uncertainty, fear, disappointment and confusion I feel right now.” Such feelings are commonplace among groups suddenly fearing their path to citizenship is shutting. “We’ve had clients in tears asking us, what did they do wrong,” said Breslow of Project Citizenship, which has seen 21 clients receive oath ceremony cancellations and more than 200 being paused at an earlier stage. “What did they do to deserve this? People are very distraught.” Emotions are running particularly high among Afghans, nearly 200,000 of whom arrived in the US under the Biden administration’s Operation Allies Welcome program that followed the 2021 military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Many now feel singled out and betrayed after the national guard shootings, according to advocates. “We feel guilt and shame that that guy was part of our community,” said Fatima Saidi, director of We Are All America, a refugee and immigrants group. “But he was also a part of American militarism. He joined the US army when he was 15 and was trained.” In fact, Lakanwal was part of an Afghan unit that operated under CIA direction. “We also feel guilty for other communities because policies that are targeting Afghans are also affecting them,” she added. “But the other thing is just hopelessness and disappointment, especially among the Afghans who came here as allies. Most of them feel they have done so much for America, the veterans and the state department.” Nicole Melaku, executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans, said the collective demonizing of legal residents and citizenship applicants had ominous portents. “The strategy of the administration began with an assault on undocumented immigrants, and now he [Trump] is going after those with legal status and trying to move them into his deportation pipeline through administrative processes,” she said. “Everything here feels like part of a larger, ominous agenda to have exclusion, going back to times where we had the Chinese Exclusion Act or other operations in the 1940s like sending people back to Mexico.” Her warning was given added weight by guidance issued last week to USCIS field offices that signalled a forthcoming assault on the citizenship of Americans already naturalized. side by side photos of man holding two passports and woman smiling with man as she holds up folder of papers ‘I want that escape route’: Americans seek dual citizenships under Trump Read more The new guidance instructed offices to “supply Office of Immigration Litigation with 100-200 denaturalization cases per month” during the 2026 fiscal year, the New York Times reported, targets that would amount to a massive escalation of denaturalization cases. By comparison, only 120 were filed from 2017 to 2025. Federal law mandates that citizenship can only be withdrawn if holders committed fraud while applying. But a justice department memo sent to its civil division last June ordered denaturalization cases to be prioritized and appeared to lay down broader parameters. “It says they’re going to prioritize denaturalization cases against people who furthered criminal gangs, people who committed felonies that were not disclosed, and people who engaged in fraud against private individuals,” an immigration policy expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, said. “Those categories don’t require criminal convictions. “Only certain cases can be denaturalized under the law, although this administration is trying to stretch the parameters of what that means. “People who have had their naturalization interviews and ceremonies canceled … and then also stripping citizenship from already naturalized Americans – they’re like two halves of the same coin to make more of our community members subject to detention and deportation.”