Sotomayor apologizes to Kavanaugh over remarks on his immigration stop opinion

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly apologized to Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday for her comments at a recent talk criticizing his opinion concerning the Trump administration’s immigration stops. “At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate,” Sotomayor said in a statement. “I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.” During last week’s appearance, Sotomayor had reportedly criticized Kavanaugh for his defense of his vote last September to lift limits on the Trump administration’s immigration stops in the Los Angeles area. The limits blocked stops based on a person speaking Spanish or working in a certain profession. In a solo opinion, Kavanaugh emphasized the stops are “brief” and immigration officers “promptly” let go anyone found to have legal status. It sparked an uproar from Trump’s critics, who’ve accused the Supreme Court of effectively greenlighting racial profiling. Many began dubbing them “Kavanaugh stops.” “I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops,” Sotomayor said at her talk last week in Kansas, according to Bloomberg Law. “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” Sotomayor’s comments come amid a blitz of public appearances by the justices in between their March and April argument sessions. Speaking to law students at the University of Alabama later in the week, Sotomayor insisted most of the justices “actually like each other” when asked how she builds bridges with her colleagues. “They may care about different issues than I do a bit more, but in terms of human values, we share the same ones,” Sotomayor said. “And I don’t define them by their worst ideas,” she added with a laugh. “As human beings, I look to them as people to have a relationship with them. And I dare say that with virtually all of them, I certainly have a civil relationship. And with many of them, I think I dare say that I have friendship.” The Supreme Court returns for its April session on Friday, when the justices are expected to hand down at least one opinion in a pending case. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

House advances bill to shield Haitian immigrants in defiance of Trump

The House voted Wednesday to advance a measure that would reinstate temporary protections for Haitians living in the U.S., with six Republicans voting alongside Democrats to oppose a key component of President Donald Trump's immigration policy. NBC News Icon Subscribe to read this story ad-free Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content. arrow The measure, brought forward through a parliamentary move known as a discharge petition by Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus, won a key procedural vote to advance to a final vote set for Thursday. The legislation seeks to grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to eligible Haitian immigrants for three years. Rep. Ayanna Pressley Speaks Out Against Government Layoffs And Impacts On Black Women Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., at a news conference near the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 25.Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images file “This is a critical step forward in our fight for immigrant justice and delivering our Haitian neighbors the protections they deserve—and it’s a testament to the strength of our broad, diverse, and bipartisan coalition,” Pressley said in a statement, adding that she was "grateful" to her Republican colleagues who voted for the measure. Recommended politics The influencer who helped bring down Swalwell Elections Democrats want the full 2024 election autopsy released — no matter the findings ADVERTISING The legislation was first introduced in the Republican-controlled House by Reps. Laura Gillen, D-N.Y., and Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., last year. "The State Department claims it is too dangerous for American citizens to go to Haiti because of kidnapping, gang violence and widespread chaos, but yet, the administration has said it's safe for Haitians to return there," Gillen said Wednesday on the House floor. She said that "removing our neighbors would not just be a humanitarian catastrophe; it would hurt our economy," adding that Haitian immigrants "work in critical sectors like health care, education, caregiving, supporting our elderly and working in local hospitals." Temporary Protected Status allows foreign nationals from countries facing war, environmental disasters or other unsafe conditions to live and word in the U.S. for a certain time. The Trump administration tried to terminate the Temporary Protected Status of about 350,000 Haitian immigrants last summer, but a federal judge halted the move. The administration appealed the decision shortly after the judge indefinitely postponed the terminations in an order in February. It is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court this month. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday's vote. The House voted 219-209 on the discharge petition to force a vote on Lawler and Gillen's bill, with Republican Reps. María Elvira Salazar and Carlos A. Gimenez of Florida, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Don Bacon of Nebraska and Lawler and Nicole Malliotakis of New York voting in favor alongside 212 Democrats and one independent. Members can use discharge petitions to get around leadership that is opposed to holding votes on legislation. US-HAITI-IMMIGRATION-TPS People at a candlelight vigil in Miami for Haitians living in the U.S. under the Temporary Protected Status immigration program.Giorgio Viera / AFP via Getty Images file "Removing TPS status for Haitians living in the United States would cost 350,000 workers their ability to work at a time when we’re already facing serious workforce shortages," Bacon said on X. "I don’t see the goodness of deporting people who are here legally, working, and contributing to our country." He added that he has heard from health care providers and business leaders across Nebraska who are raising the alarm over the impact deporting Haitian immigrants could have on patient care and the economy. Malliotakis said in her own post that her office has heard from nursing homes in her New York district "that will lose skilled and dedicated nursing staff if TPS is not renewed." "These are Haitian immigrants who are working, paying taxes and contributing to our economy and fulfilling a healthcare need. To strip them of their status and deport them to a country in peril would be uncompassionate and misguided," she wrote. The vote comes less than a week after Trump posted a graphic video in which a man smashes an SUV parked outside a gas station in Florida with a hammer before he uses the hammer to attack a woman who left the store to confront him. The man beat the woman and then fled, according to the Fort Myers Police Department arrest report. First responders pronounced the woman dead. A suspect, identified as Rolbert Joachin, was later arrested and charged with homicide. Following the attack, the Department of Homeland Security said Joachin is an undocumented immigrant from Haiti. Trump blamed Democrats in Congress, "Deranged Liberal District Court Judges" and the Biden administration on Truth Social for supporting policies that he claims allowed Joachin to receive Temporary Protected Status. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Judges fired after blocking deportation of pro-Palestinian students

Two immigration judges who ruled against the Trump administration in the deportation cases of pro-Palestinian university students have been fired by the Department of Justice. The New York Times reported over the weekend that the justice department had terminated six judges, including Roopal Patel and Nina Froes, who oversaw deportation proceedings against Rümeysa Öztürk and Mohsen Mahdawi, two students who were arrested last year as part of Trump’s campaign against the Gaza protest movement. In an interview with the Guardian, Patel said she did not view her dismissal as “directly retaliatory” for any one case. She said it fit within a broader pattern of the administration dismissing judges near the end of their probationary term, particularly those who have experience representing immigrants in court. “I think there’s a broader agenda of trying to reshape the immigration bench to be more reflective of the political agenda of the administration,” Patel said. A collage of a lawyer in shadows and an asylum application The secretive, destructive work of an ICE attorney: ‘My job is to do what I’m told’ Read more The Biden administration appointed both Patel and Froes to the bench in May 2024, and both had previously worked in immigration defense. A recent NPR analysis found that the Trump administration appears to be targeting immigration judges who previously represented immigrants. Earlier this year Patel rejected the administration’s efforts to deport Öztürk, then a Tufts University PhD student who had co-written an op-ed for the student newspaper critical of the university’s response to Israel’s attacks on Palestinians. Her attorneys said that Patel terminated the proceedings against her after finding the government did not have grounds to deport her. In February, Froes blocked the Trump administration from removing Mahdawi, a Columbia student and pro-Palestinian activist who was arrested during a US citizenship interview last year. Patel said she had enjoyed serving as an immigration judge, although it was difficult given the “extraordinary consequences” her decisions had on people’s lives, and that pressures had increased as the administration ramped up its deportation agenda. She was conducting a hearing on Friday afternoon and had just taken a break when she received an email notifying her that it would be her last day as the department would not be converting her to permanent status and she was terminated. Knowing that other government workers who have been terminated were quickly escorted out, Patel grabbed her things, notified a supervisor that there were people in her courtroom who would need to be dismissed, and left. An illustration of numerous gentle, overlapping hands forming the shape of a protective flower enclosing a small, curled up child. After my ICE arrest, I learned one crucial way to respond to trauma. We can all take part Read more In response to a query regarding the recent terminations, the justice department said in a statement that the Executive Office for Immigration Review “continually evaluates all immigration judges, regardless of background, on factors such as conduct, impartiality/bias, adherence to the law, productivity/performance, and professionalism”. “All judges have a legal, ethical, and professional obligation to be impartial and neutral in adjudicating cases,” the statement read. “If a judge violates that obligation by demonstrating a systematic bias in favor of or against either party, EOIR is obligated to take action to preserve the integrity of its system.” Patel expressed concern about the direction of the courts and the impact of having fewer people with experience representing immigrants. “It increases the likelihood of people making mistakes when you lose people with experience and training, and then you combine that with increased pressures to resolve more cases faster and faster, and it just creates less room for due process and more room for errors,” she said. “It’s important for us to have an immigration bench that is responsive to the law, to the constitution, to due process, and it is concerning to see that is being eroded actively.”

ICE arrested more than 800 people after tips from US airport security agency

TSA shared over 31,000 traveler records with ICE for immigration enforcement Democrats criticize ICE airport deployments, citing confusion and fear for travelers Immigration attorneys report airport arrests, including of parents traveling with children WASHINGTON, April 7 (Reuters) - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested more than 800 people following tips ​shared by federal airport security officials from the start of Donald Trump's presidency through February 2026, internal ICE data reviewed by ‌Reuters show, a figure far above what was previously publicly known. The leads came from the Transportation Security Administration, which supplied ICE with records on more than 31,000 travelers for possible immigration enforcement, the data showed. The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here. Advertisement · Scroll to continue Reuters could not determine how many arrests took place inside airports, although the TSA tips would mainly be useful in determining when a person would ​be traveling. ICE and TSA are part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The agencies have historically shared information related to national security ​threats, but they began focusing on routine immigration arrests last year as part of Trump’s mass deportation effort. TSA PROGRAM ⁠WAS DESIGNED TO COUNTER TERRORISM The 31,000 traveler records were gathered by TSA's Secure Flight Program, which was created in 2007 to allow the agency to ​review passenger information for people who may be on U.S. government watchlists. The program was intended as a counter-terrorism measure, not to track down immigration offenders, ​according to the regulation outlining, opens new tab its purpose. Advertisement · Scroll to continue DHS did not respond to questions about TSA providing passenger information to ICE, but said that under Trump, TSA "is pursuing solutions that improve resiliency, security, and efficiency across our entire system." Figures for arrests and traveler records that TSA shared with ICE before Trump's current term were unavailable. U.S. airports and immigration enforcement have been ​at the center of a partisan funding fight since mid-February, when Democrats refused to support additional money for the Republican president’s immigration crackdown without reforms to ​scale back aggressive tactics. The standoff blocked the passage of a bill to fund DHS, which caused TSA security officers to miss at least two full paychecks. After some unpaid ‌TSA officers ⁠began calling in sick, Trump deployed ICE officers to more than a dozen airports in March to aid security efforts. 00:26 The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard Democrats have criticized the deployment and called on the Trump administration to remove them. A group of more than 40 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives wrote in a letter to recently installed Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin last week that ICE officers “will cause confusion and fear" if allowed to remain in airports. REPORTS OF UNEXPECTED AIRPORT ARRESTS Several cases ​of ICE officers arresting travelers in U.S. ​airports have sparked backlash. ICE officers detained ⁠a college student traveling from Boston to Texas to celebrate Thanksgiving in November and arrested a sobbing mother at San Francisco International Airport the day before Trump’s airport deployment began. DHS defended both arrests and said they were subject to final ​orders of removal. Reuters spoke with three immigration attorneys who said they were familiar with cases of people without ​legal immigration status ⁠being arrested in airports. The cases included an Irish couple who had lived in the U.S. for more than two decades and were detained last summer by immigration authorities in front of their children when trying to fly from Florida to New York after a vacation, Christina Canty, one of the lawyers, said. The parents - who ⁠had pending ​applications for permanent residency - were deported and left their two young children, ages 7 and 10, with ​adult siblings in the U.S., Canty said. In another case, a Chinese woman with a final order of removal who was seeking permanent residence was detained by ICE last year at the ​Atlanta airport en route to Philadelphia, one of the attorneys said. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

ICE Agents Detain Newlywed Spouse of Soldier Training to Deploy

A U.S. Army staff sergeant and his wife arrived at his base in Louisiana last week, expecting to begin their life together as newlyweds. The couple checked in at the visitor center, identification in hand, ready to complete the steps that would allow her to move into his home on the base. Within hours, that plan had unraveled. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entered the base and detained his wife, an undocumented Honduran immigrant who was brought to the U.S. as a toddler. By nightfall, she was in a detention facility with hundreds of women facing deportation as part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. The detention came just days after Annie Ramos, 22, a college student with no criminal record, and Matthew Blank, 23, celebrated their marriage with family and friends. Sergeant Blank, who enlisted more than five years ago, is assigned to a brigade at Fort Polk, La. that is set to begin training at the end of the month for deployment. “Our plan was to drive over, bring her to the office to get her military ID and activate her military spouse benefits,” such as health and life insurance, he said. “She was going to move in after the Easter weekend. Instead, she got ripped away from me.” Image The couple stand in front of white balloons. Annie Ramos and Sergeant Blank were engaged on New Year’s Day and married in March. Credit...Courtesy of Matthew Blank When U.S. citizens marry undocumented immigrants, their spouses become eligible for legal permanent residency through marriage, and they can apply for citizenship three years after receiving their green card. Even those with a prior deportation order, often issued when they were children, are not typically detained and are able to adjust their immigration status, experts said. Before they were married, Ms. Ramos and Sergeant Blank had hired a lawyer to begin that process. “I knew she didn’t have status,” he said. “We were doing everything the right way.” Editors’ Picks 9 Songs We’re Talking About This Week My Husband Can’t Get a Job. Should I Divorce Him? ‘Summer House’ Mansion on the Market for $5.65 Million SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Or so they thought. Ms. Ramos had been ordered deported in absentia in 2005, when she was 22 months old, after her family failed to appear at a hearing in immigration court, a circumstance that was “very common, “ according to Margaret Stock, who wrote a book called “Immigration Law and the Military.” “Prior to the Trump administration creating a mass deportation policy, somebody like her would not have been detained,’’ said Ms. Stock, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve who practices immigration law and who has handled many similar cases. She said the military would typically have allowed Ms. Ramos to get her military ID and told the couple to file their immigration papers. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said that Ms. Ramos had been arrested “after she attempted to enter a military base.” “She has no legal status to be in this country and was issued a final order of removal by a judge,” the statement read. “This administration is not going to ignore the rule of law.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT The U.S. Army did not immediately comment. Ms. Ramos and Sergeant Blank’s story began early last year. The couple connected through a dating app, then met in person and their romance blossomed. They were engaged on New Year’s Day. In late March, about 60 guests gathered to celebrate their wedding in Houston, where Ms. Ramos was raised. A mariachi band played as the guests shared a meal of fried chicken, Spanish rice and mashed potatoes. Sergeant Blank’s mother Jen Rickling, said in an interview that her daughter-in-law was “absolutely a darling, and we adore her” and listed her qualities. Ms. Ramos is a devout Christian who teaches Sunday school to children at her church, Ms. Rickling said. She was in her high school’s marching band. And she was a few months from finishing a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry. On April 2, the couple and Sergeant Blank’s parents drove from Houston to the base, arriving early for a 2 p.m. appointment. As instructed, the couple checked in at the visitor center, where they presented Ms. Ramos’s birth certificate, Honduran passport, their marriage license and Sergeant Blank’s military ID. They never made it to the benefits office. According to Sergeant Blank and his mother, an attendant scrutinized the documents and asked if Ms. Ramos had a visa or a green card. She did not, they explained, noting that their lawyer had prepared a green card application that would be filed any day. The attendant made a flurry of calls. “They told us, ‘We’ll figure it out,’ ’’ recalled Sergeant Blank. He said that he and his wife were respectful and he kept his composure despite thinking that the officials were “dragging it out.” Tears began to stream down his wife’s face. A supervisor was called, followed by an officer from the base’s criminal investigation division, who said he would contact Homeland Security and ICE. After the call, Sergeant Blank said, the officer told them Ms. Ramos would be detained. The family broke down in tears. Image Sergeant Blank in front of a tall wire fence. Sergeant Blank after visiting his wife, Annie Ramos, at the detention facility over the weekend. Credit...Lily Brooks for The New York Times Ms. Ramos was separated from them, placed in handcuffs and driven away in a military police vehicle. Sergeant Blank said he and his parents followed in their truck to another building, where she was unshackled and placed in what “looked like an interrogation room.” Three ICE agents arrived. They first encountered Ms. Rickling and her husband in the lobby. “They told us that they didn’t have a choice, they said they had to take Annie,” recalled Ms. Rickling. She said they apologized. “I begged them not to take her,” Ms. Rickling said. “They said the higher-ups made them do it.” The agents entered the room, offered the couple the same explanation, again shackled Ms. Ramos and took her away. Their lawyer has asked ICE to release Ms. Ramos on her own recognizance while a motion is prepared to reopen the old deportation order, which would block her removal. Ms. Stock, the expert on immigration and the military, said ICE could deport Ms. Ramos at any moment. “It’s fundamentally harmful to national security to be doing this to members of the military, particularly while there is a war going on,” Ms. Stock said. “This is a major crisis for this soldier. His mind can’t be on the job.” Gaby Pacheco, president of TheDream.US, submitted a letter of support for Ms. Ramos, whose education is being funded by the organization, which provides scholarships to undocumented immigrant youth. Ms. Ramos had applied in 2020 for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA, a program that shields from deportation undocumented people brought to the U.S. as children. Her application was never processed by the Trump administration because the program was halted for new applicants. “I grew up here like any American,” Ms. Ramos said during a call from the detention center in Basile, La. “This is all I know,” she said. “My husband and family are here.” Sergeant Blank said: “We are going to fight with everything I have. She is going to move in with me. We will start a family.” Sergeant Blank, who has been previously deployed to the Middle East and Europe, said that his chain of command has been supportive as he works to resolve the situation. “I am going to be with her and serve my country,” he said On Saturday, he and his mother traveled to the detention center in Basile, La. with the completed form to apply for Ms. Ramos’s green card. It only needed her signature. Guards barred them from bringing anything inside. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Lawyers alarmed by immigration judge's 'atrocious' questions for gay asylum seekers

A federal immigration judge in southern New Mexico spent nearly three hours pressing a gay Iranian asylum seeker about his same-sex relationship, a recording obtained by The Advocate shows, alarming his attorney and raising concerns about how LGBTQ+ asylum claims are judged in the Trump administration. Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter. Stay up to date with the latest in LGBTQ+ news with The Advocate’s email newsletter, in your inbox five days a week. Enter your email Enter your emailI’m in! The man is one of two Iranian asylum seekers in a same-sex relationship who fled their country fearing execution for “homosexual conduct,” which is criminalized in Iran and can be punishable by death. Their attorney, Rebekah Wolf of the American Immigration Council, described their case as a “textbook” asylum claim. Support Independent Journalism LGBTQ+ stories deserve to betold. Your membership powers The Advocate's original reporting—stories that inform, protect, and celebrate our community. Become a Member FOR AS LITTLE AS $5. CANCEL ANYTIME. At issue is Immigration Judge Samuel Williams, who presides over cases at the Otero detention court. A late-2024 appointee to the bench, Williams came to immigration court after a career as a prosecutor and military attorney, with no publicly documented prior experience in immigration law. Both men remain in immigration detention while their cases move forward, protected from immediate deportation after securing stays of removal that allow their appeals to proceed. One obtained a stay from the Board of Immigration Appeals; the other received protection through federal court intervention. Related: Trump administration is potentially sending two gay men to their death by preparing to deport them to Iran Related: Canada pauses nonbinary American's deportation to U.S., citing Trump's hostile policies At a spring 2025 hearing, in which the man represented himself before securing legal representation, Williams repeatedly pressed the applicant about details of his personal life. “And you are currently married. Is that your spouse’s name?" Williams asked about the woman the Iranian married 14 years ago, before turning to his relationship with another man. “Y’all all sleep in the same room?” he later asked after the applicant described living with both his wife and male partner in Iran. Williams also pressed the applicant on who, if anyone, knew about his sexual orientation in a line of questioning that advocates say can misunderstand how LGBTQ+ people survive in countries where disclosure can be deadly. “You never told anybody else that you were gay?” Williams pressed. Through an interpreter, the man said secrecy was not a choice but a necessity for survival. He testified that only his wife knew about his relationship with another man and that disclosing his sexual orientation more broadly in Iran could have placed him in immediate danger. He described living under constant fear, maintaining a heterosexual marriage as cover while privately navigating a same-sex relationship in a country where discovery could lead to arrest or death. He also told the court he had been detained by Iranian authorities after being discovered with his partner, and described physical abuse and fear of further punishment if he were returned. Related: Your rights, explained: What to do if you encounter ICE or DHS agents Related: Massachusetts federal judge orders gay asylum-seeker deported under Trump returned to U.S. Still, the judge’s questions returned to what could be demonstrated and how clearly it could be articulated. “These are almost yes or no questions… I just want to know… so I can check the box to say that your case at least smells like it meets the elements for asylum,” Williams said, according to the recording. After the applicant described detention and abuse, Williams asked, "So, you had no physical injuries?" Advocates say an emphasis on visible injury can narrow how persecution is understood in asylum proceedings, particularly in cases involving psychological harm, coercion, or credible threats of future violence. Wolf told The Advocate that the exchange reflects what she described as an implicit expectation that applicants prove their sexual orientation in ways that may not account for the risks of disclosure in countries where same-sex relationships are criminalized. She said concerns about credibility have extended beyond this case, with LGBTQ+ asylum seekers at times facing detailed questioning about their identity and experiences that differ in tone or scope from other types of claims. Wolf pointed to another case involving a South American asylum seeker, in which she said similar dynamics played out. In that case, she said the judge repeatedly questioned the applicant’s account of sexual violence, focusing on perceived inconsistencies and pressing the applicant in ways she described as dismissive, including questioning whether repeated sexual assaults her client described were in fact consensual. “The language is so atrocious,” Wolf said. “Asking, ‘Every time they hold you down and rape you, are you sure that these aren’t consensual relationships?’" The scrutiny comes as the administration has increasingly relied on so-called third-country deportations, sending some migrants to countries like Uganda, where they are not citizens and may have no prior ties. The practice has drawn criticism from legal experts and human rights groups, who warn it can place asylum seekers, including LGBTQ+ people, at risk if they are transferred to countries where they could face persecution. Legal experts say credibility is central to asylum cases but caution that it must be applied carefully, particularly in claims involving sexual orientation. “It does seem like [judges] are exhibiting some type of bias in these cases," Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told The Advocate. She emphasized that such concerns are based on patterns observed by practitioners. She noted that judges are expected to evaluate demeanor, responsiveness, and plausibility, but said misunderstandings about how LGBTQ+ people navigate identity in hostile environments can affect those assessments. Wolf also pointed to a Moroccan client who speaks a rare regional language and has been detained for more than a year without having his asylum hearing, because the government has been unable to secure a qualified interpreter. She said the court has at times suggested proceeding with an interpreter in another language, while also accusing the client of “pretending” not to understand. Related: Trump and El Salvador's president attack transgender people during White House meeting Related: Gay man says ICE is keeping his husband jailed even though they’ve agreed to leave the U.S. Dojaquez-Torres said such challenges are common in immigration court, including among clients from Mexico who speak Indigenous languages rather than Spanish. In those cases, she said, courts sometimes push applicants to proceed in Spanish even though it is not their primary language. “The judge might say, ‘We again can’t find the Indigenous interpreter for you, but we have a Spanish interpreter. Do you want to go back to detention for another month or do you want to do your case today in Spanish, a language that might not be your most comfortable language?’” she said. “We find people making a lot of hard decisions like that.” Immigration judges are employees of the Justice Department, not members of the independent federal judiciary, and avenues for addressing alleged bias are limited, advocates say. Even when decisions are overturned on appeal, cases are often remanded to the same judge for further proceedings. Those structural limitations are compounded by the broader conditions facing LGBTQ+ migrants in detention. A 2024 report from the advocacy organizations National Immigrant Justice Center, Immigration Equality, and Human Rights First found that LGBTQ+ people in U.S. immigration detention reported high rates of physical and sexual violence, frequent use of solitary confinement, and systemic barriers to medical care. "Discrimination and abuse against LGBTQIA+ individuals is a frequent occurrence inside detention,” Jeff Migliozzi, of Freedom for Immigrants, told The Advocate. Oversight, he added, has become "virtually nonexistent." Dojaquez-Torres said incidents of in-detention assault rarely affect asylum outcomes. "An immigration judge will go, 'That’s very sad. Now let’s get back to your asylum case,'” she said. "And so, unless you are lucky enough to get it reported on by a sheriff who will actually continue to press charges in that case, getting assaulted in the detention center will likely have very little impact on your immigration case." "It will be of almost no consequence on their immigration case," she added. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration courts, declined to comment on the specific allegations. "EOIR does not comment on immigration judge decision-making," spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly told The Advocate, adding that the agency investigates credible complaints but does not publicly disclose outcomes. The Justice Department did not respond to The Advocate's request for comment. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

House Republicans kvetch anew about DHS funding plan

House Republicans are balking, once again, at a GOP plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Dozens of members aired objections to a proposed two-step process backed by President Donald Trump in a lengthy private call Thursday afternoon, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the conversation. 00:39 Top Stories from POLITICO Skip Ad Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP leaders made a case for a bill funding most of the department — one they bitterly opposed as recently as this past weekend — leaving key immigration enforcement agencies for the party-line budget reconciliation process. But several members on the call said they would oppose a bill that Johnson had publicly called a “joke” after it initially passed the Senate last week, with some reiterating they did not want to vote for a package that omits Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol funding. Many pushed for the enforcement funding bill to at least start moving through the House before passing the larger DHS bill. One member on the call told POLITICO the House should not fund the bulk of the department until the Senate passes the enforcement spending. “This is pretty pathetic,” the member said. “It’s taking a step back.” The call came hours after the Senate acted to put the two-track plan into motion, sending the bill funding most of the DHS back to the House early Thursday morning. Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s maneuver, undertaken without objection in a mostly empty chamber just after 7 a.m., came less than a day after Trump effectively endorsed what had been Thune’s strategy all along for DHS: funding most of it through a bipartisan deal with Democrats then using reconciliation to plow cash into immigration enforcement. Now the bipartisan funding measure is back in the House for a redo less than a week after conservatives balked the first time at separating out enforcement funding. And it could be nearly two more weeks before they take a vote on it. GOP leaders currently have no plans to bring members back to Washington earlier than their scheduled April 14 return from a two-week spring recess. With some of his members resisting the deal, Johnson will likely have to rely on the votes of House Democrats to get the DHS funding bill to Trump’s desk. While members have been under pressure to deliver paychecks to DHS workers who have been furloughed or working without pay since Feb. 14, the pressure to act has been eased by Trump, who moved last week to pay airport security officers and announced Thursday he would pay other DHS employees as the legislation moves across Capitol Hill. “Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers,” the president wrote Thursday. “I will soon sign an order to pay ALL of the incredible employees at the Department of Homeland Security.” The separate party-line track for ICE and Border Patrol funding emerged after Republicans and Senate Democrats could not agree, despite weeks of negotiations, on any new immigration enforcement restrictions in the wake of federal agents killing two people in Minneapolis in January. Senate Majority Leader John Thune landed on the two-step approach as the best possible option last week, then watched it implode in the House after the Senate initially passed the bigger bill on a voice vote early Friday morning. Asked Thursday how he revived the deal, Thune said, “You … have to just continue to define reality for people, what’s achievable in the Senate, what we can get done.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement Thursday that House Republicans needed to act immediately to approve the bipartisan deal. “The deep division and dysfunction among House Republicans is needlessly extending the DHS shutdown and hurting federal workers who are missing another paycheck,” he said, calling on them to “get to work and end the longest Republican shutdown in history.” Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who attended a brief House session Thursday, told reporters he is pleased to see Republicans coalescing around the Senate-approved plan. Asked if House Republicans “caved,” Beyer said, “I’d rather say that they saw the wisdom of what was sent to them.” House Democrats are slated to meet Monday evening to discuss DHS funding and other matters. Even once both chambers clear the Senate bill, they will face a tight timeline for the second part of the Trump-blessed plan, delivering an immigration enforcement bill to his desk by June 1. The Senate is expected to move first to approve a budget resolution that will unlock the GOP-only immigration bill, according to three people granted anonymity to disclose private strategy, and could adopt the fiscal blueprint for the final bill by the end of the month. Thune said Thursday he has already had conversations with Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) about how to move as quickly as possible. “Our theory of the case behind all this was to keep that thing as narrow and focused as possible, and that maximizes, I think, the speed at which we can do it and the support for it,” he said. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Law enforcement leaders propose guidelines to restore trust amid immigration operations

One day after Alex Pretti was shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis, the world’s largest group of police chiefs urged the White House to organize a sit-down with federal, state and local law enforcement leaders to better coordinate immigration enforcement and ensure community safety. While the White House was responsive, a swarm of other law enforcement agencies, officers’ unions and government organizations reached out to the International Association of Chiefs of Police and said they wanted to participate, IACP president David Rausch told CNN. Leaders from nearly 20 groups – including the National League of Cities, the National District Attorneys Association and the Small and Rural Law Enforcement Executives’ Associations – met in early March to align on how to address what was happening in their jurisdictions. “We all agreed immigration is a legit issue, and its enforcement is legit,” Rausch said. “However, the approach needed to be better coordinated and organized.” The IACP-led gathering produced a set of “shared principles” calling for clear communication between federal and local agencies, a focused targeting of violent criminals and broader safety measures. Related article Federal agents walk down a street while conducting immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis, on Thursday, February 5. Cooperation with ICE is the latest red vs. blue state divide 10 min read Those guidelines, outlined in a document released Tuesday, aim to rebuild the relationships between agencies and local communities left frayed after police departments were pulled into the vortex of public backlash in response to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, like those seen in Minneapolis. The publication, which highlights the growing friction between federal, state and local law enforcement officials, is polite but direct in stating concerns over how immigration enforcement operations “can affect officer safety, public trust, and the effectiveness of joint operations” in the cities where those operations are conducted. “When we’re not working together, things can be unsafe for communities and for officers. Expectations and protocols need to be aligned, tactics need to be consistent,” Rausch said. It’s a carefully worded statement, but also highly unusual and significant, said CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller. “I can’t remember a time when the organization representing the nation’s police chiefs turned a critical eye on other law enforcement agencies in such a public way,” Miller said. “It’s a real sign that police chiefs feel the administration’s no-holds-barred approach to immigration enforcement has put police departments in a difficult position in maintaining community relations that took a long time to build and have been damaged by this process.” Federal agents are seen during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis on February 3, 2026. Federal agents are seen during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis on February 3, 2026. Charly Triballeau/AFP/Getty Images ‘Constitutional policing and community trust’ The White House was supportive of the IACP’s new efforts, Rausch said. Asked for a response to the IACP publication, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in part, “Partnerships with law enforcement are critical to having the resources we need to arrest criminal illegal aliens across the country.” “ICE has supercharged efforts with state and local law enforcement to assist federal immigration officers in our efforts to make America safe again,” the spokesperson said, adding those agreements have increased more than 1,000%. However, assisting with ICE operations is exactly what some agencies are trying to avoid. Local departments have no authority in civil immigration enforcement, and in many cities, police are prohibited by local law from participating in it. The public safety organizations behind the IACP’s publication said they’re committed to an ongoing effort to “restore reliable operational communication; clarify and respect roles, authorities and limitations; and ensure that enforcement tactics align with constitutional policing and community trust.” A woman carries flowers at a memorial for Renee Good who was shot and killed by an ICE agent last month on February 12, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. White House "Border Czar" Tom Homan announced today that the federal immigration enforcement surge in the state would conclude. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images) Minnesota's grief is emerging after 'unnatural' ICE disaster, local pastor says 3:01 To accomplish that, their “shared principles” focus on communication and collaboration between local and federal agencies, and officer and community safety. Police chiefs in multiple cities have criticized DHS conducting operations on their streets without prior communication with local officials, putting cops at risk. The working group also calls for enforcement efforts to focus on violent criminals rather than civil enforcement of people simply out of status: “Broad statistic-driven operations are counterproductive and divert resources, undermine trust, and can result in the apprehension of individuals who pose no threat to public safety.” And while no specific officials were named, the publication also called for the federal government to tone down “harmful and overly political rhetoric,” which “erodes legitimacy and reinforces perceptions that policing lacks transparency and accountability.” New DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said during his confirmation hearing he would be a different kind of leader than his embattled predecessor Kristi Noem and aim to keep the agency out of the headlines. Rausch is optimistic about Mullin, he told CNN, saying the IACP and its partners see him “as a fresh start and opportunity to be able to sit down to begin these conversations that, frankly, should have happened previously.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

House GOP relents on DHS funding plan after Trump weighs in

Congressional GOP leaders said Wednesday they will quickly move to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown after President Donald Trump set a hard deadline for Republicans to fund immigration enforcement. The statement from Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson comes after Trump set a June 1 deadline for Republicans to fund ICE and Border Patrol through the party-line budget process called reconciliation — giving them an off-ramp from the weeks-long fight over the administration’s immigration enforcement strategy that has been at the heart of the DHS shutdown. 00:02 02:00 Read More “In the coming days, Republicans in the Senate and House will be following through on the President’s directive by fully funding the entire Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks: through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process,” Thune and Johnson said in a joint statement. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking, said the administration supports the GOP leaders’ plan. The White House and congressional Republican leadership have been working since late last week to mutually agree on a reconciliation plan before Congress returns on April 13, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations and granted anonymity to describe them. Trump’s Wednesday demand for Republicans to use the procedural tool that circumvents a Democratic Senate filibuster comes as the DHS shutdown moves further into record-breaking territory. “We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” the president posted on Truth Social. The president’s post essentially endorsed the approach favored by Thune. And the plan he subsequently detailed with Johnson mirrors the strategy the Senate had already been pitching — funding most of DHS through a bipartisan deal with Democrats and then using the reconciliation process to enact funding for ICE and Border Patrol. It’s also a U-turn for Johnson and House Republicans who rejected the Senate deal Friday, saying they could not support a bill that did not include funding for immigration enforcement agencies. “They sent us a bill that literally put the number zero in the bill for the funding of border security and customs and immigration enforcement,” Johnson said Tuesday during an interview with Fox and Friends. “We can’t do that. That was the biggest issue in the 2024 election.” The soonest Senate Republicans could attempt to pass their bill to fund most of DHS again is Thursday morning, when the Senate convenes for a brief pro forma session. In order to move the bill forward, the Senate would need unanimous approval from all 100 senators — and a few GOP senators have publicly bashed the deal since it was struck on Friday. Both the House and Senate have adjourned for two weeks, leaving Washington with lawmakers pointing fingers at each other. Democrats have dug in and refused to fund immigration enforcement agencies without constraints on how agents can operate. The president’s post on Truth Social didn’t specify whether he wants the reconciliation bill to be confined solely to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol funding. Previously, Trump had indicated that he wanted pieces of the GOP voting bill, known as the SAVE America Act, included. Congressional Republicans are also mulling trying to include Iran war funding in their reconciliation push. Thune and Johnson said Wednesday the bill will include border security and immigration enforcement funding through the rest of the Trump administration. Some GOP lawmakers have suggested going further and funding ICE and CBP for 10 years — the maximum allowed under reconciliation rules. Reconciliation is an intensive multistep process, requiring the House and Senate to first agree on a consensus fiscal blueprint known as a budget resolution. Neither GOP leaders nor Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who made a separate statement, specified when either the chamber would move to take up a budget resolution. But the Senate is expected to move first, according to two people granted anonymity to disclose internal strategy. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Wednesday that if there isn’t a deal to reopen DHS by the time Congress comes back “you’ll see a skinny reconciliation bill move very quickly through the Senate and the House.” But many House Republicans have been wary of moving nonenforcement DHS funding first because of their skepticism that the Senate will actually pass more ICE and Border Patrol funding through reconciliation. Some signaled Wednesday they are not on board with the new plan. “Funding for ICE and CBP must never be separated from DHS funding,” Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) wrote on X. “If Republicans isolate it, they’re handing our border and ICE agents straight to the radicals who will defund and dismantle them every chance they get. Fund DHS fully, or the open borders globalists win.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Federal government appealing order releasing 5-year-old from immigration custody

The federal government may try to send 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos back to detention. The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal Wednesday in federal court in Texas, challenging a January ruling that freed the 5-year-old Minnesota resident and his father, Adrian Conejo Arias, from an immigration detention facility. The father and son were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers during a crackdown in the Minneapolis area earlier this year, drawing nationwide attention. The filing, obtained by CBS News, takes the fight to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. If the government succeeds, the two could find themselves back in detention. "The first time they came for us it was unjust. The second time they came for us is unjust. We are not giving into their fear," Adrian Conejo Arias told CBS News through his attorney, Danielle Molliver. He also sent a message of gratitude to people around the world who have advocated on their behalf, saying, "Thank you to all those who continue to support and love us." A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told CBS News that the father and son "received full due process and were issued a final order of removal on February 19." "The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law and common sense to our immigration system, and will continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal of illegal aliens who have no right to be in this country," the spokesperson continued. The government is appealing a ruling by U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, who ordered the father and son released after finding their constitutional rights had been violated. Biery called their detention the product of a "perfidious lust for unbridled power" and said the case had its "genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children." In addition to the release order, the government's appeal extends to "all opinions, rulings, findings, conclusions, judgments, and orders on which the grant of the Petition is based." Conejo's story — and the image of a 5-year-old standing outside his home wearing a blue bunny hat and a Spiderman backpack while surrounded by immigration agents — became a symbol of the harsh crackdown under Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis. Liam Conejo Ramos, 5, was detained by ICE officers along with his father Liam Conejo Ramosis detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers after arriving home from preschool on Jan. 20 in a Minneapolis suburb. Ali Daniels / AP CBS News documented the impact of Conejo's detention at his elementary school in a Minneapolis suburb, where 24 families had children or parents detained at the time. Valley View Elementary Principal Jason Kuhlman told CBS News he was worried about Conejo's health while he remained in detention in late January. "His friends notice that he's not here. Then when it hit the media, they start seeing his face on TV," Kuhlman said. "It's like, how do you explain that? When you start missing someone out of your classroom. How do you have that conversation with a 5-year-old?" A spokesperson for the Columbia Heights School District confirmed to CBS News that the 5-year-old was back in the classroom and his family wanted to make sure he wasn't singled out over the rest of the students as he re-adapted. Conejo's case drew outrage after community members alleged ICE agents had used him as "bait" to have his mother open the door of their home after agents detained his father. Then-DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin responded to questions about the viral photo of Conejo in front of his home, saying his father "fled on foot—abandoning his child. For the child's safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Conejo Arias." The DHS statement added, "Our officers made multiple attempts to get the alleged mother who was inside the house to take custody of her child. Officers even assured her she would NOT be taken … into custody. The alleged mother refused to accept custody of the child. The father told officers he wanted the child to remain with him." Airport surveillance video released in late March shows images of Conejo and his father being escorted by federal agents to a Delta flight from Minneapolis to Texas after their Jan. 20 detention. In March, an immigration judge denied the family's asylum claim, leaving them eligible for deportation. Their attorneys are appealing that decision, but the government's appeal to their release challenges a narrow protection provided in Biery's order, that if they were re-detained, they must receive a bond hearing. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Immigrants seeking asylum are ordered to countries they’ve never been to, but end up stuck in limbo

The Afghan man had fled the Taliban for refuge in upstate New York when U.S. immigration authorities ordered him deported to Uganda. The Cuban woman was working at a Texas Chick-fil-A when she was arrested after a minor traffic accident and told she was being sent to Ecuador. There’s the Mauritanian man living in Michigan told he’d have to go to Uganda, the Venezuelan mother in Ohio told she’d be sent to Ecuador and the Bolivians, Ecuadorians and so many others across the country ordered sent to Honduras. They are among more than 13,000 immigrants who were living legally in the U.S., waiting for rulings on asylum claims, when they suddenly faced so-called third-country deportation orders, destined for countries where most had no ties, according to the nonprofit group Mobile Pathways, which pushes for transparency in immigration proceedings. Yet few have been deported, even as the White House pushes for ever more immigrant expulsions. Thanks to unexplained changes in U.S. policy, many are now mired in immigration limbo, unable to argue their asylum claims in court and unsure if they’ll be shackled and put on a deportation flight to a country they’ve never seen. Related Stories Asylum claim denied for the family of the boy in a bunny hat detained with his father, lawyer says Asylum claim denied for the family of the boy in a bunny hat detained with his father, lawyer says Supreme Court considers letting Trump administration revive restrictive immigration asylum policy Supreme Court considers letting Trump administration revive restrictive immigration asylum policy ICE agents said to have posed as police, a tactic some fear could erode trust in real cops ICE agents said to have posed as police, a tactic some fear could erode trust in real cops Some are in detention, though it’s unclear how many. All have lost permission to work legally, a right most had while pursuing their asylum claims, compounding the worry and dread that has rippled through immigrant communities. And that may be the point. “This administration’s goal is to instill fear into people. That’s the primary thing,” said Cassandra Charles, a senior staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, which has been fighting the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda. The fear of being deported to an unknown country could, advocates believe, drive migrants to abandon their immigration cases and decide to return to their home countries. Things may be changing. In mid-March, top Immigration and Customs Enforcement legal officials told field attorneys with the Department of Homeland Security in an email to stop filing new motions for third-country deportations tied to asylum cases. The email, which has been seen by The Associated Press, did not give a reason. It has not been publicly released, and DHS did not respond to requests to explain if the halt was permanent. But the earlier deportation cases? Those are continuing. An asylum-seeker says she’s in panic over possibly being sent to a country she doesn’t know In 2024, a Guatemalan woman who says she had been held captive and repeatedly sexually assaulted by members of powerful gang arrived with her 4-year-old daughter at the U.S.-Mexico border and asked for asylum. She later discovered she was pregnant with another child, conceived during a rape. In December, she sat in a San Francisco immigration courtroom and listened as an ICE attorney sought to have her deported. The ICE attorney didn’t ask the judge that she be sent back to Guatemala. Instead, the attorney said, the woman from the Indigenous Guatemalan highlands would go to one of three countries: Ecuador, Honduras or across the globe to Uganda. Until that moment, she’d never heard of Ecuador or Uganda. “When I arrived in this country, I was filled with hope again and I thanked God for being alive,” the woman said after the hearing, her eyes filling with tears. “When I think about having to go to those other countries, I panic because I hear they are violent and dangerous.” She spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing reprisal from U.S. immigration authorities or the Guatemalan gang network. There have been more than 13,000 removal orders for asylum-seekers ICE attorneys, the de facto prosecutors in immigration courts, were first instructed last summer to file motions known as “pretermissions” that end migrants’ asylum claims and allow them to be deported. “They’re not saying the person doesn’t have a claim,” said Sarah Mehta, who tracks immigration issues at the American Civil Liberties Union. “They’re just saying, ‘We’re kicking this case completely out of court and we’re going to send that person to another country.’” The pace of deportation orders picked up in October after a ruling from the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals, which sets legal precedent inside the byzantine immigration court system. The ruling from the three judges — two appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and the third a holdover from the first Trump administration — cleared the way for migrants seeking asylum to be removed to any third country where the U.S. State Department determines they won’t face persecution or torture. After the ruling, the government aggressively expanded the practice of ending asylum claims. More than 13,000 migrants have been ordered deported to so-called “safe third countries” after their asylum cases were canceled, according to data from San Francisco-based Mobile Pathways. More than half the orders were for Honduras, Ecuador or Uganda, with the rest scattered among nearly three dozen other countries. Deported migrants are free, at least theoretically, to pursue asylum and stay in those third countries, even if some have barely functioning asylum systems. Deportations have been far more complicated than the government expected Immigration authorities have released little information about the third-country agreements, known as Asylum Cooperative Agreements, or the deportees, and it’s unclear exactly how many have been deported to third countries as part of asylum removals. According to Third Country Deportation Watch, a tracker run by the rights groups Refugees International and Human Rights First, fewer than 100 of them are thought to have been deported. In a statement, DHS called the agreements “lawful bilateral arrangements that allow illegal aliens seeking asylum in the United States to pursue protection in a partner country that has agreed to fairly adjudicate their claims.” “DHS is using every lawful tool available to address the backlog and abuse of the asylum system,” said the statement, which was attributed only to a spokesperson. There are roughly 2 million backlogged asylum cases in the immigration system. But deportations clearly turned out to be far more complicated than the government expected, restricted by a variety of legal challenges, the scope of the international agreements and a limited number of airplanes. Mobile Pathways data, for example, shows that thousands of people have been ordered deported to Honduras — despite a diplomatic agreement that allows the country to take a total of just 10 such deportees per month for 24 months. Dozens of people ordered to Honduras in recent months did not speak Spanish as their primary language, but were native speakers of English, Uzbek and French, among other languages. And while hundreds of asylum-seeking migrants have been ordered sent to Uganda, a top Ugandan official said none have arrived. U.S. authorities may be “doing a cost analysis” and trying to avoid dispatching flights with only a few people on board, Okello Oryem, the Ugandan minister of state for foreign affairs, told The Associated Press. “You can’t be doing one, two people” at a time,” Oryem said. “Planeloads — that is the most effective way.” Many immigration lawyers suspect that the March email ordering a halt in new asylum pretermissions could indicate a shift toward other forms of third-country deportations. “Right now they haven’t been able to remove that many people,” said the ACLU’s Mehta. “I do think that will change.” “They’re in a hiring spree right now. They will have more planes. If they get more agreements, they’ll be able to send more people to more countries.” ___ Associated Press reporters Garance Burke in San Francisco, Joshua Goodman in Miami, Rodney Muhumuza in Kampala, Uganda, Marlon González in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and Molly A. Wallace in Chicago contributed to this report The Associated Press is an independent global news organization dedicated to factual reporting. Founded in 1846, AP today remains the most trusted source of fast, accurate, unbiased news in all formats and the essential provider of the technology and services vital to the news business. More than half the world’s population sees AP journalism every day. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Supreme Court appears skeptical over Trump’s push to restrict citizenship at birth

Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical on Wednesday of the Trump administration’s argument that the 14th Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to the children of noncitizen parents. The high court heard oral arguments on April 1 in Trump v. Barbara, a landmark case that will determine whether President Donald Trump can essentially redefine who is considered an American by restricting which babies born on U.S. soil have the right to citizenship. The bulk of the Trump administration’s argument centered on whether the children of noncitizen or temporary-status immigrants have an allegiance to the United States, and whether they can claim a “permanent domicile and residence” inside the country. The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one. Shop Now 970x250 Multiple justices raised questions about how the administration defines “domicile” and the logistics of how that definition might be applied if the executive order were to go into effect. Notably, three of the six justices who make up the court’s conservative majority — Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — appeared unmoved. “The examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Roberts said. Barrett, for her part, questioned how the administration’s argument might apply to the children of people trafficked illegally into the country. Trump listened in, becoming the first sitting president in history to attend a Supreme Court argument. The court’s liberal women justices pressed the administration on how enforcing the order would work in practice. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered if the administration seeks to retroactively “unnaturalize” people born to noncitizen parents but have already secured birthright citizenship; Solicitor General D. John Sauer responded that the administration does not intend to take retroactive action. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked, “Are we bringing pregnant women in for depositions?” In an interview with The 19th after the oral arguments, Hannah Steinberg, a staff attorney on the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project who assisted with the case, brought up the issue of enforcement: Who will be responsible for verifying the immigration status of a newborn’s parents? “Are women going to have to bring their identification to the hospital? Is the hospital going to check?” Steinberg said. “It’s a huge impact. It unsettles our entire system of law and practice.” These questions underscore the wide-reaching effect Trump’s birthright order would have. Previous Coverage An American flag in shadow. How redefining birthright citizenship could impact children of immigrants Trump executive order on birthright citizenship casts a narrow view of family What’s the latest on birthright citizenship? Supreme Court to review Trump’s order. An estimated 250,000 babies are born on U.S. soil to immigrant parents without authorization. Narrowing the scope of birthright citizenship threatens to expand the number of people living in the country without authorization for generations. An estimated 2.7 million additional people would be unauthorized by 2045, and 5.4 million additional people by 2075, according to projections published by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University. The American Civil Liberties Union is representing a group of parents and children who would be affected by Trump’s order. In its challenge to the administration, Cecillia Wang, national legal director for the ACLU, argued that establishing a permanent domicile was not the focus of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. “The 14th Amendment’s fixed bright line rule has contributed to the growth and thriving of our nation. It comes from text and history. It is workable and it prevents manipulation,” Wang told the justices. She added, “The executive order fails on all those counts; swaths of American laws would be rendered senseless. Thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship, and if you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans past, present and future could be called into question.” On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order denying birthright citizenship to children born to immigrants without legal status and temporary visitors from foreign countries. The order ushered in some of the most aggressive immigration enforcement in U.S. history, one that has had a notable impact on immigrant families. In a number of lawsuits, civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations, as well as four states, argued that the order violates the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and longstanding legal precedent that has upheld birthright citizenship for the children of noncitizens. A federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the administration’s ability to enforce the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The Trump administration filed an emergency petition last year asking the Supreme Court to limit federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, also known as “universal” injunctions. In June 2025, the court’s conservative majority weakened the power of lower courts to issue injunctions that block the implementation of White House policies nationwide. The ACLU argues that the scope of birthright citizenship and its inclusion of the children of noncitizen parents was affirmed by the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which ruled in favor of a man born in California to Chinese parents. If the Trump administration seeks to overturn the Ark ruling, the ACLU contends, then it has not provided enough evidence to justify its interpretation of the citizenship clause. Steinberg told The 19th that the legal definition of domicile applies to a person residing in the country who intends to remain indefinitely. That definition is “nowhere within the 14th Amendment,” she said. “There’s nothing that says, for example, that someone who is undocumented is not able to be domiciled here,” Steinberg added. “The government is not only inserting ‘domicile’ into the 14th Amendment, but totally reinventing what the concept even means.” Many legal experts contend that birthright citizenship is settled law, strengthened by decades of court rulings. Still, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made it clear it is not averse to change long-standing legal precedent, as it did in recent years with the overturning of federal abortion protections and sharply limiting the consideration of race in college admissions. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

FY 2027 H-1B Initial Registration Selection Process Completed

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has received enough electronic registrations for unique beneficiaries during the initial registration period to reach the fiscal year 2027 H-1B numerical allocations (known as the H-1B cap), including the advanced degree exemption (master’s cap). USCIS selected enough beneficiaries with properly submitted registrations to reach the H-1B cap and notified all prospective petitioners with selected beneficiaries that they are eligible to file an H-1B cap-subject petition for those beneficiaries. Registrants’ online accounts will display their registration status. For more information, visit the H-1B Electronic Registration Process page. H-1B cap-subject petitions for FY 2027, including those petitions eligible for the advanced degree exemption, may be filed with USCIS beginning April 1, 2026, if filed for a selected beneficiary and based on a valid registration. Only petitioners with registrations for selected beneficiaries may file H-1B cap-subject petitions for FY 2027. An H-1B cap-subject petition must be properly filed at the correct filing location or online at my.uscis.gov and within the filing period indicated on the relevant selection notice. The period for filing the H-1B cap-subject petition will be at least 90 days. Petitioners must include a copy of the applicable selection notice with the FY 2027 H-1B cap-subject petition. On Feb. 27, 2026, we published a new edition of Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (edition date 02/27/26). Beginning April 1, USCIS will only accept the 02/27/26 edition of Form I-129. All H-1B cap subject petitions for FY 2027 must use this edition of the form. An H-1B cap petition filed on behalf of a beneficiary must contain and be supported by the same identifying information and position information as the selected registration. Petitioners must submit evidence of the beneficiary’s valid passport or travel document used at the time of registration to identify the beneficiary and evidence of the basis of the wage level selected on the registration as of the date that the registration underlying the petition was submitted. See the How to Ensure You Properly File Your H-1B Cap-Subject Petition section on the H-1B Cap Season webpage for additional information. The Presidential Proclamation Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers requires certain H-1B petitions filed at or after 12:01 a.m. Eastern on Sept. 21, 2025, to be accompanied by an additional $100,000 payment as a condition of eligibility. See the Presidential Proclamation on Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers section on our H-1B Specialty Occupations page for additional details. Petitioners filing H-1B cap petitions on behalf of selected beneficiaries based on their valid registration must still submit evidence as provided in the Form I-129 instructions and establish eligibility for petition approval, as registration and selection only pertain to eligibility to file the H-1B cap-subject petition.

ICE agents will be stationed outside Marine Corps graduation events in South Carolina

WASHINGTON — ICE agents will be stationed outside graduation events for the nation’s newest Marines to identify whether any of their family members are undocumented, according to the Marine Corps. NBC News Icon Subscribe to read this story ad-free Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content. arrow As the U.S. continues the war in Iran, the Marine Corps has boosted protection measures on bases, requiring everyone to present REAL IDs, U.S. passports or U.S. birth certificates to access any sites. Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for federal REAL IDs and don’t have U.S. passports or birth certificates. So people without identifying documents who arrive at the gate of Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island in Beaufort, South Carolina, for recruit family days and graduation events this week may now have to answer to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, the Marine Corps said. Because of “increased force protection measures” at the recruit depot, "federal law enforcement personnel will be present at installation access points to conduct enhanced screening and lawful immigration status inquiries during recruit family and graduation days,” a message on the Parris Island website read. While sometimes family members don’t have proper documentation, it wasn’t clear why ICE had decided to station at Parris Island. A DHS spokesperson said any suggestion that ICE would make arrests was false. "ICE will not be making arrests at the basic training graduation in Paris Island, SC,” the spokesperson said. Graduation is Friday morning, but family members are invited to visit the base and celebrate their sons’ and daughters’ completion of the grueling training beginning Wednesday. Marine recruits aren’t allowed to see their families during the 13-week boot camp. Recommended Women's Health Federal funding for reproductive health care could lapse Wednesday due to Trump administration delays From the Politics Desk Why Democrats still face an uphill climb to win the Senate: From the Politics Desk “While the Marine Corps routinely coordinates with federal partners on security matters, this is the first time in recent memory that federal law enforcement agencies have supported base access operations at Parris Island in this capacity,” according to a spokesperson for MCRD Parris Island. The spokesperson encouraged all visitors to be prepared for additional screening measures. “To help ensure a smooth and timely process, guests should bring proper identification and limit the number of items they carry onto the installation,” the spokesperson said. Marine Corps recruits have trained at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island since November 1915. It has graduation ceremonies about 46 weeks of the year, according to a spokesperson. It’s not clear whether ICE will be at the gate to Parris Island for the foreseeable future or whether the ICE involvement could expand to other bases. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump’s Justice Department Dropped 23,000 Criminal Investigations in Shift to Immigration

Reporting Highlights A Striking Departure: The number of declinations marks a striking departure not only from the Biden administration but also the first Trump term, according to the ProPublica analysis. An Unusual Order: Former DOJ prosecutors said that they regularly reviewed caseloads. But none could recall an order like the one in February to review cases. Different Priorities: While Elon Musk’s DOGE operatives said they were rooting out federal waste, fraud and abuse, the DOJ declined over 900 cases of federal program or procurement fraud. These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story. In the first days after Pam Bondi was appointed attorney general last year, the Department of Justice began shutting down pending criminal cases at a record pace. The cases included an investigation into a Virginia nursing home with a recent record of patient abuse; probes of fraud involving several New Jersey labor unions, including one opened after a top official of a national union was accused of embezzlement; and an investigation into a cryptocurrency company suspected of cheating investors. In total, the DOJ quietly closed more than 23,000 criminal cases in the first six months of President Donald Trump’s administration, abandoning hundreds of investigations into terrorism, white-collar crime, drugs and other offenses as it shifted resources to pursue immigration cases, according to an analysis by ProPublica. The bulk of these cases, which were closed without prosecution and known as declinations, had been referred to the DOJ by law enforcement agencies under prior administrations that believed a federal crime may have been committed. The DOJ routinely declines to prosecute cases for any number of reasons, including insufficient evidence or because a case is not a priority for enforcement. But the number of declinations under Bondi marks a striking departure not only from the Biden administration but also the first Trump term, according to the ProPublica analysis, which examined two decades of DOJ data, including the first six months of Trump’s second term. ProPublica determined the increase is not the result of inheriting a larger caseload or more referrals from law enforcement. In February 2025 alone, which included the first weeks of Bondi’s tenure, nearly 11,000 cases were declined, the most in a month since at least 2004. The previous high was just over 6,500 cases in September 2019, during Trump’s first administration. Some of the cases shut down were the result of yearslong investigations by federal agencies such as the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. For complex cases, the DOJ can take years before deciding whether to bring charges. The shift comes as the DOJ has undergone an extraordinary overhaul under the Trump administration, with entire units shuttered, directives to abandon pursuit of certain crimes and thousands of lawyers quitting or, in some cases, being forced out of the agency. In doing so, the DOJ is retreating from its mission to impartially uphold the rule of law, keep the country safe and protect civil rights, according to interviews with a dozen prosecutors and an open letter from nearly 300 DOJ employees who have left the department under Trump. The Trump DOJ, the employees wrote, is “taking a sledgehammer” to long-standing work to “protect communities and the rule of law.” The change in priorities was outlined in a series of memos sent to attorneys early last year. Trump’s DOJ has said it is “turning a new page on white-collar and corporate enforcement” and emphasizing the pursuit of drug cartels, illegal immigrants and institutions that promote “divisive DEI policies.” Trump, in an address last March at the department, said the changes were necessary after a “surrender to violent criminals” during the past administration and would result in a restoration of “fair, equal and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.” The department prosecuted 32,000 new immigration cases in the first six months of the administration, which was nearly triple the number under the Biden administration and a 15% increase from the first Trump term. It has pursued fewer prosecutions of nearly every other type of crime — from drug offenses to corruption — than new administrations in their first six months dating back to 2009. The DOJ has also closed hundreds of cases involving alleged crimes that the administration has publicly emphasized as enforcement priorities. Even as the Trump administration unleashed Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency operatives to root out waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, the DOJ declined over 900 cases of federal program or procurement fraud. About three times as many cases of major fraud against the U.S. were declined under Trump compared with the average of similar time periods under prior administrations. And while the Trump administration has promised to “make America safe again,” its DOJ has declined more than 1,000 terrorism cases, also more than prior administrations. Federal prosecutor Joseph Gerbasi had spent years in the department’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section helping build cases against major suppliers of fentanyl ingredients in India and China. After Bondi came in, he was left bewildered when his team was ordered to abandon its work. “All of the building blocks of what would become successful prosecutions were pulled out,” said Gerbasi, who retired as the section’s acting deputy chief for policy in March 2025 after 28 years with the department. The move had an “overwhelming deflating effect on morale,” he said. After Trump’s Inauguration, the Department of Justice Turned Down a Record Number of Cases The first quarter of 2025, and especially February of that year, saw the department declining to prosecute cases against thousands of defendants outside of its regular six-month review process. Source: DOJ data provided by TRAC Ken Morales/ProPublica Barbara McQuade, who worked as a federal prosecutor in Michigan for two decades until 2017 during Republican and Democratic administrations, said it was not unusual for new administrations to come to office with a few “pet priorities” — such as a focus on violent crime or drug trafficking. But she said those changes usually involved modest adjustments in policy and that most of the decisions on what crimes to focus on were typically made at the local level by the district U.S. attorney in coordination with the FBI or other agencies. “We would revise those about every five years, not having anything to do with any administration, just because it made sense,” she said. A DOJ spokesperson, in an emailed response to questions about the spike in declinations, said that in “an effort to clean, remediate, and validate data in U.S. Attorneys’ case management system,” the department reviewed all pending criminal matters opened prior to the 2023 fiscal year, which included updating the status of closed cases. “This Department of Justice remains committed to investigating and prosecuting all types of crime to keep the American people safe, and the number of declinations is a direct result of our efforts to run the agency in a more efficient manner.” The agency did not respond to questions about the types of cases declined. The spike of declined cases began in February 2025 when the department ordered prosecutors to review every open case launched prior to October 2022 and determine whether to close it. Such a review would typically take months, according to one attorney tasked with reviewing cases. A memo, which was described to ProPublica reporters, ordered the review to be completed within 10 days. Former DOJ prosecutors told ProPublica that they typically reviewed caseloads every six months with supervisors and that closing out languishing cases wouldn’t ordinarily be cause for concern. They said the February directive, however, was unusual. None could recall a similar order. The directive came as higher-ups in the department had begun making frequent demands for data about specific types of cases and charging decisions, such as the outcome of fentanyl cases, according to former prosecutor Michael Gordon. Gordon, who helped prosecute Jan. 6 cases before moving to white-collar crime prosecutions, said the “fire drills” from officials in Washington became so regular that he grew used to the forlorn look on his supervisor’s face when he showed up at Gordon’s door, apologetically delivering yet another frantic request. “It was either ‘give us stats we can use to make ourselves look good’ or ‘give us the stats to show how bad things are in this area,’” Gordon said. “It was never productive fact-finding.” Though Gordon didn’t see the memo, he remembered getting the request to review all cases that had been open for more than two years and report back on their status, entering into a master spreadsheet basic information about any that he wanted to keep pursuing. “The office was pushing us to close everything by a certain date so that when they had to report up to D.C. they had a low number of open cases,” he said. “You really had to go to bat to keep open a case that was more than two years old.” Gordon said he was fired by the DOJ last June. He has filed a lawsuit alleging his termination was politically motivated. The department did not respond to questions about Gordon’s comments or his lawsuit. The government filed a motion to dismiss the case late last year, arguing that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. The court has not yet ruled on that motion, and the case is still pending. Investigations into individuals or corporations declined for prosecution are generally not reported to courts and usually only disclosed in summary form by the DOJ in annual reports. To conduct its analysis, ProPublica obtained declination data from the DOJ and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a center that obtains data through Freedom of Information Act requests. The DOJ Declined a Slew of Cases Shortly After Pam Bondi Was Confirmed as Attorney General Nearly 11,000 criminal cases were declined during her first month in office. Source: DOJ data provided by TRAC Ken Morales/ProPublica Here are some of the areas most impacted by the spike in declinations. Drugs As president, Trump has spoken frequently about the “scourge” of drugs coming into the country. At the same time, the Justice Department has declined to prosecute nearly 5,000 cases of federal drug law violations, including trafficking and money laundering. The number of declinations were 45% higher than the average of the prior three new administrations. Gerbasi, the counternarcotics prosecutor, declined to comment on specific cases that might have been declined in his office. But, he said, once Bondi was appointed, the priority in the office became building cases against Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan group that the Trump administration has labeled a foreign terrorist organization. “Tren de Aragua was not anywhere close to the scale or impact of the cartels we were focused on,” Gerbasi said. “But we were told to generate those cases.” He said his office had to scramble to fly people to investigate local gangs in small towns that were reportedly affiliated with Tren de Aragua. “They never would have merited a full-scale federal investigation,” he said. “It told me that decisions were going to be based on political appearances and not based on the merits of where investigative resources should be placed.” The DOJ declined to comment on Gerbasi’s remarks. Trump’s DOJ Has Rejected Far More Cases Than Previous Administrations Across a Wide Range of Categories Many of the dropped cases were in programs the DOJ has claimed were priorities. Source: TRAC, DOJ Note: “Other” primarily includes government regulatory offenses and theft. Comparison to average of past administrations only includes the first six months after a presidential administration change: Obama (2009), Trump (2017) and Biden (2021) Ken Morales/ProPublica National Security Under Bondi, the DOJ declined more than 1,300 cases involving terrorism and national security, nearly twice what was typical at the start of the most recent new administrations. While domestic terrorism was the hardest-hit program, just over 300 cases involving charges of providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations were also dropped. The DOJ program handling matters relating to national internal security — which considers cases of alleged spy activity and the security of classified information — saw over 200 declinations, which is four times as many as typical in the first six months of a new administration. Some of the cases related to serving as an unregistered foreign agent, a charge Bondi ordered prosecutors to stop pursuing unless they involved “conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors.” Jimmy Gurulé, a former federal prosecutor and George W. Bush appointee to the U.S. Treasury Department who investigated the financing of terrorism, said the decline in terrorism cases was troubling. “The Trump DOJ has been used as a political weapon,” he said. “It’s a question of prioritizing resources. Are they going to be used for national security threats or to prosecute his political enemies and critics?” The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment on Gurulé’s remarks. Labor The DOJ shut down over 60 union corruption and labor racketeering cases, 2.5 times the number in Trump’s first term. Nearly half of the cases turned down for those offenses were out of the New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office, which in the past has aggressively pursued alleged union corruption. All were noted as declined for insufficient evidence. Most of those cases had been opened by Grady O’Malley, an assistant U.S. attorney who oversaw several prosecutions of union corruption while working in the New Jersey office over four decades. He retired in 2023 and was disturbed to learn from former colleagues that the office was shutting down the open union probes. A Trump supporter, O’Malley said that while he doesn’t blame the president, he worries the decision to drop so many cases could embolden unions that he and his colleagues spent years working to hold accountable. “No one is assigned to do labor union cases, and the unions have every reason to believe no one is looking.” The New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office said it had no comment on the declination of labor cases. White-Collar Crime The Trump administration has pledged to root out “rampant” fraud in federal benefit programs like food stamps and welfare. The controversial surging of federal agents to Minnesota in January began as a stated crackdown on noncitizens allegedly ripping off nutrition and child care programs. The DOJ, however, shut down more than 900 cases of federal program or procurement fraud in the first six months of the administration, including one targeting a mortgage lender accused by several state regulators of defrauding the Federal Housing Administration. The case was dropped due to “prioritization of federal resources and interests.” The U.S. attorney’s office for the Northern District of Alabama, which declined the case, did not reply to a request for comment. The number of fraud cases closed was about double that in the same time period of the Biden and first Trump administrations. The agency also closed over 100 health care fraud cases as a result of “prioritization of resources and interests” even though the Trump administration has said it is making this area of enforcement a priority. Among other cases the DOJ determined weren’t a priority: the probe into the Virginia nursing home accused of abuse, as well as investigations in Tennessee into fraud at a national hospital chain and one of the largest Medicaid managed care companies. The Western District of Virginia U.S. attorney’s office, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the nursing home case. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney in the Middle District of Tennessee said the office does not comment on investigations that do not result in public charges. The DOJ’s Antitrust Division, which focuses on preventing big businesses from creating harmful monopolies, also declined an unusually high number of cases in Trump’s second term. More than 40 cases were dropped within the first six months of Bondi’s tenure. That’s more than double the number declined in the same time period by the prior three new administrations. Despite the declinations, the department said it charged slightly more people with fraud in 2025 compared with the final year of the Biden administration, and those cases alleged larger financial losses. Promises Kept The DOJ under Bondi has also rapidly pursued many of the priorities laid out in Trump’s early executive orders and her own “first day” directives to staff. Trump in February 2025 issued an executive order pausing new investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits citizens and companies from bribing foreign entities to advance their business interests. The order asked the attorney general to review and “take appropriate action” on any existing probes to “preserve Presidential foreign policy prerogatives.” In the first six months, Bondi’s DOJ shut down 25 such cases, which is more than the combined number dropped by the prior three new administrations over the same time period. One of the cases declined for prosecution involved a major car manufacturer, which had reported possible anti-bribery violations to federal investigators involving a foreign subsidiary. The DOJ declined the case for prosecution last June, citing the “prioritization of federal resources and interests.” On her first day, Bondi ordered a review of criminal prosecutions under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act, which prohibits people from illegally blocking access to abortion clinics and places of worship. The department dropped as many cases under the act in its first six months as the past three new administrations combined, over the same time frame. Bondi’s order focused on “non-violent protest activity,” although at least one of the closed cases was being investigated as a violent crime. The DOJ has since charged protesters against Immigration and Customs Enforcement and journalists in Minneapolis under the FACE Act. The defendants in the case have pleaded not guilty. The agency closed three times the number of cases alleging environmental crimes as the Biden administration did and one-and-a-half times as many as compared with Trump’s first term. The declinations came as the DOJ reassigned and cut prosecutors working on environmental cases. One-fifth of all of the dropped environmental protection cases were shut down for “prioritization of federal resources and interests.” How We Tracked Declined Cases To quantify declined cases, ProPublica used data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. The dataset consists of compiled FOIA responses of the United States attorneys offices’ criminal division case management system from January 2004 to July 2025, the latest available through TRAC. The data contains nearly 4 million unique cases involving individuals or organizations. We supplemented case details in the TRAC data with data directly from the DOJ. We counted how many declinations were recorded in the first six months of Trump’s second term, compared with the same period of time for prior changes in presidential administration. That includes the first six months of the first Obama administration, the first Trump administration and the Biden administration. Cases can have multiple defendants. Prosecutors can and do decline to prosecute some defendants in a case while pursuing prosecution for others. We counted each defendant separately. Trump’s second administration inherited around 100,000 open criminal investigations, comparable to the number that Biden’s DOJ inherited. Under Trump, the DOJ declined 20% of these existing cases in its first six months, compared with Biden’s 11%. Referrals from law enforcement under Trump’s second administration were lower than the other incoming administrations in the data except for Biden, whose DOJ operated during the COVID-19 lockdown. When looking at inherited investigations, we included only cases that were open at the start of a new administration. We excluded any that had progressed to prosecution, as those would no longer be eligible for a declination. To understand which types of cases the DOJ was declining, we looked both at the area of the DOJ that was handling the case as well as the lead charge being considered. DOJ programs represent distinct areas of subject matter expertise within the department’s prosecution divisions. To further aggregate, we grouped together programs by subject matter, primarily relying on their categorization in the DOJ’s Offices of the United States Attorneys 2024 fiscal year annual statistical report. When reviewing cases by lead charge, sometimes referred to as the investigative charge, we considered them separately from the assigned DOJ program. According to the DOJ’s documentation, these are the “substantive statute that is the primary basis for the referral.” We used a large language model to help us identify charges of interest, which we then confirmed by hand by reviewing the statutes. About 2% of cases were sealed, with the DOJ program and lead charge information redacted. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump administration scaling back asylum crackdown enacted after D.C. National Guard shooting, sources say

The Trump administration is scaling back a crackdown on asylum that brought hundreds of thousands of immigration applications to a halt, two Department of Homeland Security officials told CBS News. In late November, after the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., allegedly at the hands of an Afghan man who had been granted asylum in 2025, the Trump administration enacted a pause on asylum cases overseen by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. One of those National Guard members died from her injuries. The unprecedented move, which the Trump administration argued was necessary to address national security concerns, amounted to an indefinite suspension of all asylum requests filed outside of immigration court, regardless of the applicant's nationality. But the administration has decided to lift the asylum adjudication pause for most cases, except for those filed by nationals from countries affected by a travel ban or steep immigration restrictions stemming from a previous proclamation by President Trump, the DHS sources said, requesting anonymity to describe an internal plan that had not been formally announced. The asylum freeze will remain in place for immigrants from 39 nations whose citizens currently face full or partial entry restrictions under the "travel ban" proclamation, which Mr. Trump expanded in December. That list includes African countries like Senegal, Somalia and Nigeria; Asian nations like Afghanistan, Iran and Laos; and Latin American countries like Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. In a statement to CBS News on Sunday, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed "USCIS has lifted the adjudicative hold for thoroughly screened asylum seekers from non high-risk countries." "This move allows resources to focus on continued rigorous national security and public safety vetting for higher-risk cases," DHS said, adding that the administration's "maximum screening and vetting for ALL aliens continues unabated." The Trump administration has also frozen all other legal immigration applications filed by nationals of the 39 nations listed on the "travel ban," including requests for work permits, green cards and even American citizenship. That suspension, which was also enacted after the shooting of the National Guard soldiers in Washington, remains in place. The pause in asylum and other immigration cases is one of several policies the second Trump administration has rolled out to tighten the legal U.S. immigration system. The administration has also sought to restrict work permits for asylum-seekers and to reexamine the cases of legal refugees admitted under the Biden administration. Trump administration officials have said their policies are designed to combat immigration fraud and national security concerns, and bolster vetting procedures they believe became too lax under the Biden administration. Pro-immigration advocates, meanwhile, have accused the administration of punishing legal immigrants who are complying with immigration rules. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.