Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Trump Administration Faces Record 530 Lawsuits in 2025 — Far Exceeding Biden, Obama, and Bush

An analysis of the 530 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration in 2025, how they compare to past presidents, key Supreme Court rulings, and what unresolved cases could mean for constitutional checks and balances.

Getty Images, Roberto Schmidt

Trump Administration Faces Record 530 Lawsuits in 2025 — Far Exceeding Biden, Obama, and Bush

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


On April 22 of this year, I wrote a column in The Fulcrum entitled Just the Facts: Courts’ Actions Against the Trump Administration when there were over 186 legal actions filed against the Trump administration. At the time, these lawsuits challenged various executive orders and actions, including immigration policies and the use of the Alien Enemies Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
The U.S. Capitol is seen on Nov, 5, 2025.

The U.S. Capitol is seen on Nov, 5, 2025.

Getty Images, Tom Brenner

House Speaker’s Refusal To Seat Arizona Representative Is Supported by History and Law

Adelita Grijalva won a special election in Arizona on Sept. 23, 2025, becoming the newest member of Congress and the state’s first Latina representative.

Yet, despite the Arizona secretary of state’s formal certification of Grijalva, a Democrat, as the winner of that election, Rep.-elect Grijalva has not been sworn into office.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

The Supreme Court’s stay in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem restores ICE authority in Los Angeles, igniting national debate over racial profiling, constitutional rights, and immigration enforcement.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in September 2025 to stay a lower court’s order in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. The decision temporarily lifted a district court’s restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Los Angeles area, allowing agents to resume certain enforcement practices while litigation continues. Although the decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional issues, it does have significant implications for immigration policy, law enforcement authority, and civil liberties.

Keep ReadingShow less
She Begged for Help. This State’s Probation Gap May Have Put Her in Danger.

Karen Peebles holds a photograph of her daughter, Temptress “Chippie” Peebles, and her granddaughter, Khloe. Temptress Peebles was killed, allegedly by her ex-boyfriend while he was on probation.

William DeShazer for ProPublica

She Begged for Help. This State’s Probation Gap May Have Put Her in Danger.

On Oct. 7, 2019, a 30-year-old beautician named Temptress Peebles called the Nashville probation office begging for help. Days earlier, her ex-boyfriend Brandon Horton had come up behind her, choked her and kicked her in the face, according to a court document.

Records show that was just the most recent attack. She had been living in a constant state of fear, her family said, since Horton had broken down her door and pointed a gun at her three months earlier, court records show. He had open warrants for his arrest, so she and her 8-year-old daughter, Khloe, were avoiding the apartment, always taking different roads to get to work or to stay at her family’s house.

Keep ReadingShow less