WASHINGTON 鈥� The first year of President Donald Trump鈥檚 return to the White House was defined by clashes with the judiciary branch, as the president and his administration pushed forward with an aggressive immigration agenda.
In the past year, the Trump administration has aimed to drastically change immigration policy in the United States, including by of their legal status and attempting to redefine the
The moves have often run directly against the judiciary branch.
Federal judges briefly stalled the Trump administration鈥檚, Oregon, for immigration enforcement. They also blocked the invocation of an archaic wartime law to expel immigrants from the country 鈥� a move that raised concerns, , about skirting the due process rights of immigrants.
In response, the president for the last year frequently battled with federal judges, such as in June, when the Justice Department over a two-day pause in deportations to ensure due process rights for immigrants.
Trump also fixated on certain judges that put his policies on hold, such as the District of Columbia鈥檚 Chief Judge James Emanuel Boasberg.
READ MORE: Florida continues to push new laws penalizing illegal immigration
Boasberg blocked the Trump administration from deporting certain immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and ordered the return of deportation flights that, despite his restraining order, still landed at a brutal prison in El Salvador.
Trump鈥檚 singling out of Boasberg in late March, and calling for his impeachment,
But the Supreme Court has often handed wins to the Trump administration on numerous emergency appeals. The high court allowed for referred to as third-country removals, and in Los Angeles.
The president has found himself at odds with a range of groups in response to his harsh immigration policy.
A sued the Department of Homeland Security after officials removed a so-called sensitive locations policy that limited immigration enforcement in places of worship.
The Trump administration also faced backlash in its attempt to quickly deport Guatemalan children in the middle of the night, where a for the move 鈥渃rumbled like a house of cards.鈥�
Out of the dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration, here are the five most significant court cases related to the president鈥檚 immigration policies:
Alien Enemies Act
Last March, two deportation planes carrying immigrants removed under an 18th-century wartime law were ordered to return to the U.S. by Boasberg, chief judge for the District Court for the District of Columbia.
, and 137 Venezuelan men were sent to a brutal prison known as CECOT after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The wartime law would apply to any Venezuelan national 14 and older who was suspected of being a member of the Tren de Aragua gang.
Boasberg then whether Trump officials defied his order to turn the planes around. Last month, he concluded that the deportations were illegal and carried out in defiance of his order.
The 137 Venezuelan men were eventually released from CECOT last summer through a prisoner exchange. Boasberg determined that even though the men are no longer imprisoned, they still need to be afforded their due process rights and he ordered the Trump administration to propose a way to afford those due process rights.
In the latest major development, last month he directed the administration to create a plan on how to do that, such as providing some form of video interview before an immigration judge.
The Trump administration has argued because of the U.S. military operations to extract Venezuela鈥檚 president from the county, the situation is fluid, and they cannot provide a timeline for complying with Boasberg鈥檚 order from last month.
The Justice Department鈥檚 most , objects to the court鈥檚 order to facilitate remote due process hearings, and 鈥済iven the current political instability in Venezuela, there is a serious risk of intentional interference with remote proceedings.鈥�
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also to the court, saying that 鈥渋ntroducing the matter of the disposition of the 137 class members into these discussions at this time would risk material damage to U.S. foreign policy interests in Venezuela.鈥�
He added that the U.S. does not know where the 137 Venezuelan men are.
鈥淕iven the passage of time, the U.S. government does not know鈥攏or does it have any way of knowing鈥攖he whereabouts of class members, including whether anyone has departed Venezuela or whether the regime subsequently took anyone back into custody,鈥� Rubio said.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia
The wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant and longtime Maryland man, cast a national spotlight on the president鈥檚 aggressive immigration crackdown.
Abrego Garcia鈥檚 case has highlighted the Trump administration鈥檚 appetite for mass deportations. The case started last March in the District Court of the District of Maryland, Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, despite removal protections placed by an immigration judge in 2019 because it was likely Abrego Garcia would face violence if returned to his home country.
But in March, Abrego Garcia was placed on a plane, along with Venezuelans removed under the Alien Enemies Act, to the brutal El Salvador mega-prison known as CECOT.
Federal Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return, but the Trump administration took the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that it could not force another government to comply with the U.S.
but stopped short of ordering his return.
Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. several months later to face a criminal indictment in Tennessee over allegations of human smuggling. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges, and another federal judge has found cause that the Justice Department brought the indictment in a vindictive move against Abrego Garcia.
Since his return, Abrego Garcia has he experienced at CECOT. The Trump administration to a country to which he has no ties because of the 2019 removal protections.
Trump officials re-detained Abrego Garcia and have tried to remove him to the African nations of Eswatini, Ghana, Uganda and Liberia, despite Costa Rica鈥檚 willingness to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee and his willingness to go.
For that reason, from an ICE facility in Pennsylvania and barred the Trump administration from re-detaining him.
She is currently overseeing Abrego Garcia鈥檚 challenge to his detention on the grounds that the Trump administration is using his imprisonment as punishment rather than for the purpose of removal.
A Jan. 14 hearing was the most recent development in Abrego Garcia鈥檚 case.
There, Xinis briefly conferred with his lawyers and Department of Justice attorneys regarding the timing of a final order of removal for Abrego Garcia was issued 鈥� the question was whether it was in 2019 or January 2025.
The timing of the order of removal could determine whether the Trump administration can re-detain Abrego Garcia for removal. Xinis in December ordered Abrego Garcia鈥檚 release, because she determined the Trump administration was unlawfully detaining him and said ICE failed repeatedly to show a final order of removal existed.
Xinis said she plans to make a final decision in Abrego Garcia鈥檚 case by Feb. 12.
Birthright Citizenship
One of Trump鈥檚 first executive orders he signed on Inauguration Day was ending the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.
Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents鈥� legal status. There is a small carve-out for the children born of diplomats.
If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than 250,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship and it would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to a recent by the think tank the Migration Policy Institute.
In response to Trump鈥檚 executive order, multiple lawsuits were filed and lower courts across the country have granted preliminary injunctions against the order.
One of the challenges to birthright citizenship, brought by Democratic attorneys general, made its way to the Supreme Court, but the Trump administration asked the justices to , rather than the merits of birthright citizenship.
The justices decided on
The merits of birthright citizenship are now before the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear oral arguments in February.
That birthright citizenship case is , which stems from a case in New Hampshire. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction to bar the executive order from taking effect against a class of babies born on or after Feb. 20, 2025. Those children would have been denied citizenship under the president鈥檚 executive order.
Lawmakers鈥� Access to ICE Facilities
As the Trump administration continues with aggressive immigration enforcement and detention, one of the few tools Democrats have, as the minority party, is oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities.
More than 60,000 immigrants are detained across various ICE facilities in the country, and Democrats argue they need access to conduct oversight at the facilities. Under a 2019 appropriations law, any lawmaker can carry out an unannounced visit at a federal facility that holds immigrants.
But after several Democrats were denied access to ICE facilities in July, due to a policy instituted by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that required seven days notice,
the lawmakers鈥� request to stay the new policy by Noem. But after Minnesota lawmakers said they were denied an oversight visit to an ICE facility following a deadly shooting by an immigration officer in Minneapolis, Democrats were back in court Jan. 14.
Noem required a seven-day notice, nearly identical to the policy that initially prompted the suit from Democrats last year.
The federal judge handling the case, whether the Trump administration has violated her court order.
Democrats who sued include: Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.
Expanded Use of Expedited Removal
A pillar of the Trump administration鈥檚 mass deportation campaign is the The Trump policy allows the removal of immigrants through the interior of the country without an appearance before an immigration judge.
In March, immigration advocacy groups sued the Trump administration over the policy, arguing it stripped due process rights of immigrants.
In August, the District Court for the District of Columbia in the policy, temporarily blocking the Trump administration from using it. The Department of Justice appealed, and in September a panel of appellate judges denied the Trump administration鈥檚 request to lift the lower courts鈥� stay.
Most recently, in December, the merits of its fast-track deportation policy before a panel of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Department of Justice argued that immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years without legal authorization are not guaranteed due process.
is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.
