The unchecked activism of federal district judges is obstructing the will of the American people and the constitutional authority of the President to enforce immigration policy.
Time and again, judges like Indira Talwani, Patti B. Saris, James Boasberg, and others have issued injunctions to block President Trump’s executive orders on mass deportation, only to be rebuked by the Supreme Court.
These rogue judges, operating from liberal strongholds like Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., are attempting to usurp executive power, defying the precedent that allows Presidents to revoke temporary immigration statuses just as they grant them. With millions of undocumented immigrants—far more without temporary status than with it—flooding the nation under Biden’s lax policies, the judiciary’s interference is a crisis demanding Congressional action.
Senator Josh Hawley’s bill to curb judicial overreach, backed by a grassroots uprising, is the only solution to restore the President’s authority and align with the 80% of Americans who demand mass deportation.
In early 2025, Judge Talwani in Boston blocked the termination of humanitarian parole for 532,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, arguing that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires case-by-case parole revocations. Similarly, Judge Saris halted the revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Venezuelans, citing due process. Judge Boasberg in D.C. went further, stopping deportations under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for alleged gang members, claiming the 1798 law was misapplied absent a declared war. These rulings, rooted in a hyper-technical reading of statutes, ignored the President’s broad authority over immigration, a power grounded in Article II and reinforced by decades of precedent. The Supreme Court, in May 2025, swiftly overturned Talwani’s and Saris’s injunctions, with Justices Jackson and Sotomayor’s dissents exposing their ideological bias. Boasberg’s AEA ruling faces similar scrutiny as the D.C. Circuit considers the administration’s appeal. These reversals shame the lower courts, exposing their attempts to rewrite executive policy as judicial fiat.
The principle is clear: if a President can grant temporary status like parole or TPS through executive action—as Biden did for nearly 882,000 immigrants—then a President can revoke it with equal authority. Biden’s CHNV parole programs and TPS expansions were unilateral acts, bypassing Congress. Trump’s orders to end these programs follow the same precedent, yet district judges, acting as unelected lawmakers, obstruct these reversals.
This judicial overreach is not new. In 2018, district judges blocked Trump’s first-term efforts to end DACA, only for the Supreme Court to later affirm executive discretion. The pattern repeats: activist judges issue nationwide injunctions, delaying enforcement until higher courts intervene. This cycle erodes trust in the judiciary and paralyzes the executive’s ability to secure the border.
The Constitution grants the President plenary power over immigration enforcement, yet rogue judges act as a shadow government, imposing their ideology on a nation demanding action.
The solution lies with Congress. Senator Josh Hawley’s proposed legislation to limit judicial review of executive immigration actions is a crucial step in reining in these rogue judges. By curbing nationwide injunctions and expediting appeals, Hawley’s bill would restore the balance of power. But Congress won’t act without grassroots pressure.
Senate Democrats, clinging to open-border policies, face a reckoning. A grassroots surge—reflecting the 80% of Americans who, per recent polls, support mass deportation—must crush their resistance, forcing a bipartisan agreement to end this judicial nightmare.
Only Congress, backed by the American public, can end this chaos and ensure rogue judges stop obstructing the power of the President and the will of the people.
