Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump Administration Defies Judge’s Order to Halt Deportations

News

Donald Trump
President Donald Trump.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The Trump administration announced on Sunday that hundreds of individuals were deported after President Donald Trump invoked a significant wartime authority to expedite the deportation of migrants believed to be connected to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

This announcement follows a federal judge's temporary blocking of the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, issued on Saturday evening. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg verbally ordered that any planes currently in the air carrying these migrants be redirected back to the United States.


Judge Boasberg stated that the temporary restraining order would be in effect for 14 days or until further court instruction. During the hearing, he noted, “Given the plaintiffs’ information, which the government did not contest, regarding active flights, I do not believe that I can wait any longer. Any plane containing these individuals that is set to take off or is already in the air needs to be returned to the United States.”

What is the Alien Enemies Act?

In 1798, as the United States braced for a potential conflict with France, Congress enacted a series of laws that expanded the federal government's authority. Concerned that immigrants might align with French interests, the Alien Enemies Act was established to grant the president extensive powers to imprison and deport non-citizens during wartime.

Since its inception, the act has been invoked only three times: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. During World War II, amid widespread anti-foreigner sentiment, the act contributed to the legal justification for the mass internment of individuals of German, Italian, and particularly Japanese descent.

Approximately 120,000 individuals of Japanese heritage, including U.S. citizens, were interned throughout the conflict.

" This Act returns our country to a shameful chapter of our history."

The Secure Families Initiative has expressed concern over using the Alien Enemies Act, stating, “We are not at war. This is not an invasion by a foreign state.”

They argue that invoking such a wartime authority is inappropriate given the current circumstances, and it raises risks for military families and civilians. "First, it is exclusively a wartime authority, which the moment we are in clearly is not. This move radically escalated an already volatile situation, and it puts the 50-70,000 U.S. service families and civilians living along the U.S.-Mexico border at risk of severe retaliation from foreign actors. Second, this Act removes crucial guardrails that ensure our service members are only ordered into missions that fall within proper legal boundaries and align with their training."

To read the full statement, click HERE.

In response, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated that the Trump administration believed it did not violate the judge’s order, as it was issued after the migrants had already departed the U.S.

Following this development, the administration is seeking a stay of the D.C. District Court judge’s ruling, and the court has requested a response from the plaintiffs' attorneys by Tuesday at 5 p.m.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network.


Read More

A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

Rubén Rocha Moya, governor of Mexico’s Sinaloa state, left, with then-President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, center, and then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2024. The U.S. has charged Rocha with drug corruption, but Sheinbaum has refused to arrest him.

Rashide Frias/AFP via Getty Images

A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

After months of U.S.-Mexico tensions sparked by the Trump administration’s threats to strike unilaterally at Mexican drug traffickers, the two governments are heading for a potentially more serious confrontation over President Claudia Sheinbaum’s refusal to arrest Mexican officials charged in the United States with drug corruption.

U.S. Justice Department officials have yet to present a full picture of their evidence against 10 current and former Mexican officials, whose indictments were announced on April 29. They include the governor of Sinaloa state, Rubén Rocha Moya, an ally of the president and a prominent figure in her leftist political party.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less