A federal judge delivered another setback to President Donald Trump on Friday afternoon, prohibiting his administration from deporting any undocumented immigrant to a country other than their country of origin.
The Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued following an extension of a previous block on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, alongside another ruling that barred the administration from dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Newsweek reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice and the White House via email for comments after hours on Friday.
ANDREW THOMAS/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images
Why It Matters
These legal setbacks serve as further obstacles to Trump’s extensive immigration policies and his proposed changes aimed at reducing federal government inefficiencies. The president has expressed growing frustration with district judges who can halt his administration’s initiatives.
What To Know
In Boston, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that immigrants—both the plaintiffs and others with final removal orders—could not be deported to a third country without first being given an opportunity to present their case.
The lawsuit, filed on Sunday by four plaintiffs from Cuba, Honduras, Ecuador, and Guatemala alongside the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA), claimed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to establish a consistent protocol for notifying deportees about their situations and providing them the opportunity to seek protections.
NILA stated that the lawsuit also contested a February 18 directive from DHS aimed at expediting the removal of individuals previously released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention, arguing that it could expose deportees to torture if returned without proper evaluations.
Additionally, the Trump administration faced another setback regarding its mass deportation strategy, as the TRO now restricts deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act until at least April 12, as extended by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in D.C.
Regarding the CFPB, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, also in D.C., issued a detailed 112-page ruling favoring those contesting the administration’s plan to completely eliminate the bureau.
Judge Jackson criticized the administration’s last-minute attempts to portray its intentions as non-threatening to the CFPB as mere “window dressing,” asserting that the administration aimed to undertake actions “entirely in violation of the law” by shutting it down.
Most operations of the bureau were suspended in February, affecting consumer protections, including restrictions on certain banking fees. Jackson’s ruling halts this process pending further hearings on the bureau’s activities, staff, and the data it manages.
What People Are Saying
Judge Murphy, addressing a DOJ attorney in court on Friday: “If your position today is that we don’t have to give them any notice, and we can send them to any country other than the country to which the immigration court has said no, that’s a very surprising thing to hear the government say.”
Judge Jackson in her ruling: “If the President finds the Consumer Financial Protection Act to be unsatisfactory, the administration will still have the freedom to propose legislation that reconfigures the agency in line with his policy preferences. Congress will then need to consider the benefits of any specific proposals aimed at streamlining the agency versus the advantages of maintaining the CFPB, which has been diligently returning billions to consumers at no cost to taxpayers since 2010.”
Wendy Liu, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group, stated in a press release: “Dismantling the CFPB would have catastrophic effects for consumers nationwide. The Court’s order is a vital step in preserving the agency and blocking the Trump administration’s unlawful attempts to shut it down.”
What’s Next
Significant legal battles over all three cases are expected in the upcoming weeks, as other aspects of the president’s sweeping policy changes also encounter legal scrutiny.
