2026 Judicial Rulings Thread

[UNI88]

Reagan-appointed judge slams ‘unconstitutional conspiracy,’ calls Trump an ‘authoritarian’

A federal judge Thursday decried what he said were ‘breathtaking’ constitutional violations by senior Trump administration officials and called the president an ‘authoritarian’ who expects everyone in the executive branch to ‘toe the line absolutely.’
...
As part of a condemnation that accused Donald Trump of being an “authoritarian” — a word, Young said, he chose “carefully” — the jurist also concluded that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged in an “unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people.”

“These Cabinet secretaries have failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution,” Young added.

The judge’s outrage was striking, but it’s worth emphasizing that Young has plenty of company.

Last year, for example, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, another Reagan appointee, not only rejected Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, he also took aim at the president’s twisted approach to the law.

“It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” Coughenour wrote. “The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain. Nevertheless, in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.

“The Constitution,” the judge added, “is not something the government can play policy games with.”

Soon after, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell felt compelled to remind the administration in a ruling, “An American President is not a king.”

As the year neared its end, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, yet another Reagan appointee, described Trump and his team as an “existential threat to democracy and the rule of law.” He also resigned from the bench so he can condemn the White House and its radicalism more freely and frequently.

Thought BDK might whine if I put this in the 2026 SCOTUS Thread so I started a new one ...

[BDKJMU]

Reagan-appointed judge slams ‘unconstitutional conspiracy,’ calls Trump an ‘authoritarian’

A federal judge Thursday decried what he said were ‘breathtaking’ constitutional violations by senior Trump administration officials and called the president an ‘authoritarian’ who expects everyone in the executive branch to ‘toe the line absolutely.’
...
As part of a condemnation that accused Donald Trump of being an “authoritarian” — a word, Young said, he chose “carefully” — the jurist also concluded that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged in an “unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people.”

“These Cabinet secretaries have failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution,” Young added.

The judge’s outrage was striking, but it’s worth emphasizing that Young has plenty of company.

Last year, for example, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, another Reagan appointee, not only rejected Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, he also took aim at the president’s twisted approach to the law.

“It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” Coughenour wrote. “The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain. Nevertheless, in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.

“The Constitution,” the judge added, “is not something the government can play policy games with.”

Soon after, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell felt compelled to remind the administration in a ruling, “An American President is not a king.”

As the year neared its end, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, yet another Reagan appointee, described Trump and his team as an “existential threat to democracy and the rule of law.” He also resigned from the bench so he can condemn the White House and its radicalism more freely and frequently.

Thought BDK might whine if I put this in the 2026 SCOTUS Thread so I started a new one ...

[kalm]

Reagan-appointed judge slams ‘unconstitutional conspiracy,’ calls Trump an ‘authoritarian’



Thought BDK might whine if I put this in the 2026 SCOTUS Thread so I started a new one ...

Feelings hurt.

[UNI88]

Judge orders ICE chief to appear in court or risk contempt over denial of due process

In an order dated Monday, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz said Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, must appear personally in court. Schiltz took the administration to task over its handling of bond hearings for immigrants it has detained.

“This Court has been extremely patient with respondents, even though respondents decided to send thousands of agents to Minnesota to detain aliens without making any provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result,” the judge wrote.
...
Schiltz wrote that he recognizes ordering the head of a federal agency to appear personally is extraordinary. “But the extent of ICE’s violation of court orders is likewise extraordinary, and lesser measures have been tried and failed,” he said.

“Respondents have continually assured the Court that they recognize their obligation to comply with Court orders, and that they have taken steps to ensure that those orders will be honored going forward,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, though, the violations continue.”

Nothing to see here. Just an unhinged, extremist, liberal, communist, Marxist judge ruling against the will of the people's rightfully elected tinpot dictator.

Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88

[BDKJMU]

Lib Biden judge slapped down.

[UNI88]

Lib Biden judge slapped down.

So you're happy that federal agents can continue to retaliate against individuals engaged in nonviolent, unobstructive protests?

[BDKJMU]

Lib Biden judge slapped down.

So you're happy that federal agents can continue to retaliate against individuals engaged in nonviolent, unobstructive protests?

I didn’t know you were black.

[UNI88]

So you're happy that federal agents can continue to retaliate against individuals engaged in nonviolent, unobstructive protests?

I didn’t know you were black.

I didn't know you were either since MAQA yahoos said the same thing about January 6.

[UNI88]

An Ethicist ‘in the Scalia Mold’: The Minnesota Judge Blasting ICE

But starting this year, as federal agents surged into Minnesota, hundreds of immigration cases began to overwhelm the courtrooms of Judge Schiltz’s district.

Since then, in increasingly sharp opinions, Judge Schiltz, 65, has flashed growing frustration and anger with the Trump administration, emerging as an unexpected new critic of the administration’s tactics in court.

“The court’s patience has run out,” he wrote in an order on Monday, demanding that Todd Lyons, the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, appear in his courtroom to explain why scores of people arrested by immigration agents have been held without an opportunity to challenge their detentions.

On Wednesday, he backed off that threat after one migrant at the heart of the standoff was released, as he had previously ordered. But he attached to his order a list of 96 court orders that he said ICE has violated across 74 cases.

“This list should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs — who cares about the rule of law,” he wrote, assessing that ICE has most likely violated more court orders in January alone than “some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”

ICE should obstruct/violate court orders no more than a citizen should interfere with/obstruct an ICE/CBP law enforcement options. Where are the law & order MAGA yahoos speaking out against DHS for violating all of these judicial orders?

Judges are just as much lawful authorities (if not more so) as ICE/CBP agents and their rulings should be respected. If DHS disagrees with a ruling they should appeal it, not violate it.

If DHS “will not be deterred by activists either in the streets or on the bench” then DHS needs to be held accountable just like activists on the streets are held accountable for interfering with / obstructing ICE (or CBP).

[BDKJMU]

Frey/Walz FAIL.

[UNI88]

Appeals court dismisses DOJ misconduct complaint against federal judge

Sutton argued that the government had failed to provide evidence of Boasberg's comments or sufficient context surrounding them.

"A recycling of unadorned allegations with no reference to a source does not corroborate them. And a repetition of uncorroborated statements rarely supplies a basis for a valid misconduct complaint," Sutton said in his ruling.

[BDKJMU]

Another Biden judge slapped down, this time by even the 9th Circuit.

TPS protections.

The 9th Circuit writes:

“The government is likely to prevail in its argument that the Secretary’s decision-making process in terminating TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal was not arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, the government can likely show that the administrative record adequately supports the Secretary’s action, that the TPS statute does not require the Secretary to consider intervening country conditions arising after the events that led to the initial TPS designation, and that the Secretary’s decision not to consider intervening conditions does not amount to an unexplained change in policy.”

[kalm]

[BDKJMU]

And what percent of those district court rulings are Clinton/Obama/Biden judges? Newsflash, their‘s a thing at the district court level called judge shopping. Both sides do it to get favorable rulings which are often overturned on appellate or by SCOTUS.

[kalm]

And what percent of those district court rulings are Clinton/Obama/Biden judges? Newsflash, their‘s a thing at the district court level called judge shopping. Both sides do it to get favorable rulings which are often overturned on appellate or by SCOTUS.

Fair.

What percentage of those cases involve judge shopping? Not every case presents that opportunity.

Regardless, this still a very hypocritical and radical SCOTUS

[BDKJMU]

And what percent of those district court rulings are Clinton/Obama/Biden judges? Newsflash, their‘s a thing at the district court level called judge shopping. Both sides do it to get favorable rulings which are often overturned on appellate or by SCOTUS.

Fair.

What percentage of those cases involve judge shopping? Not every case presents that opportunity.

Regardless, this still a very hypocritical and radical SCOTUS

Not as radical as all the leftist Clinton/Obama/Biden activist judges who‘s anti Trump rulings they are overturning..

[kalm]

Fair.

What percentage of those cases involve judge shopping? Not every case presents that opportunity.

Regardless, this still a very hypocritical and radical SCOTUS

Not as radical as all the leftist Clinton/Obama/Biden activist judges who‘s anti Trump rulings they are overturning..

Sure. What percentage?

[GannonFan]

And what percent of those district court rulings are Clinton/Obama/Biden judges? Newsflash, their‘s a thing at the district court level called judge shopping. Both sides do it to get favorable rulings which are often overturned on appellate or by SCOTUS.

Fair.

What percentage of those cases involve judge shopping? Not every case presents that opportunity.

Regardless, this still a very hypocritical and radical SCOTUS

What are they hypocritical and radical about? That's a loaded opinion without anything to back it up. Even your article with the "94%" backing of the current administration is lacking with any detail to substantiate that number. If you just want to shout something into the wind, have at it. If you want an actual discussion that has any depth to it then that's a different story.

[kalm]

Fair.

What percentage of those cases involve judge shopping? Not every case presents that opportunity.

Regardless, this still a very hypocritical and radical SCOTUS

What are they hypocritical and radical about? That's a loaded opinion without anything to back it up. Even your article with the "94%" backing of the current administration is lacking with any detail to substantiate that number. If you just want to shout something into the wind, have at it. If you want an actual discussion that has any depth to it then that's a different story.

So you lead with insults to complain about an actual discussion?

Ganny…forever protector of the status quo. Who tries to make the presidential immunity ruling look reasonable. I could offer up Chevron or the shadow docket ruling on ICE arresting anyone of color but I’m sure you’d find some angle in the minutia to plant your poll of democracy and freedom averse conservatism in.

Ganny…the unwitting “moderate” simping for right wing radicalism.

[GannonFan]

What are they hypocritical and radical about? That's a loaded opinion without anything to back it up. Even your article with the "94%" backing of the current administration is lacking with any detail to substantiate that number. If you just want to shout something into the wind, have at it. If you want an actual discussion that has any depth to it then that's a different story.

So you lead with insults to complain about an actual discussion?

Ganny…forever protector of the status quo. Who tries to make the presidential immunity ruling look reasonable. I could offer up Chevron or the shadow docket ruling on ICE arresting anyone of color but I’m sure you’d find some angle in the minutia to plant your poll of democracy and freedom averse conservatism in.

Ganny…the unwitting “moderate” simping for right wing radicalism.

I led with asking you what you meant by those labels. Didn't realize that was an insult. Let me know when you've actually read through the immunity ruling yourself and then we can have an actual discussion about it. If you want to keep being spoon-fed stuff to just regurgitate here without thought, well, good luck with all of that. I know you're a big fan of rationing critical thought as if it's some kind of scarce commodity.

[kalm]

So you lead with insults to complain about an actual discussion?

Ganny…forever protector of the status quo. Who tries to make the presidential immunity ruling look reasonable. I could offer up Chevron or the shadow docket ruling on ICE arresting anyone of color but I’m sure you’d find some angle in the minutia to plant your poll of democracy and freedom averse conservatism in.

Ganny…the unwitting “moderate” simping for right wing radicalism.

I led with asking you what you meant by those labels. Didn't realize that was an insult. Let me know when you've actually read through the immunity ruling yourself and then we can have an actual discussion about it. If you want to keep being spoon-fed stuff to just regurgitate here without thought, well, good luck with all of that. I know you're a big fan of rationing critical thought as if it's some kind of scarce commodity.

You’re unable to even track what you just wrote. Playing coy …who me? Insult first? I was asking a sincere question!

I know your arguments on immunity. I’m less interested in sophistry than the reality of what’s actually happening. Start with emoluments clause for gosh darn heck’s sake. Trump clearly took the ruling as a free pass whether it was well intentioned or not. And that’s just one example.

No…please reply with more insults. They really help your argument.

[GannonFan]

I led with asking you what you meant by those labels. Didn't realize that was an insult. Let me know when you've actually read through the immunity ruling yourself and then we can have an actual discussion about it. If you want to keep being spoon-fed stuff to just regurgitate here without thought, well, good luck with all of that. I know you're a big fan of rationing critical thought as if it's some kind of scarce commodity.

You’re unable to even track what you just wrote. Playing coy …who me? Insult first? I was asking a sincere question!

I know your arguments on immunity. I’m less interested in sophistry than the reality of what’s actually happening. Start with emoluments clause for gosh darn heck’s sake. Trump clearly took the ruling as a free pass whether it was well intentioned or not. And that’s just one example.

No…please reply with more insults. They really help your argument.

Reading comprehension is critical in life. Again, you said I led with insults. My literal first words (the leading part) in my initial post were "What are they hypocritical and radical about? ". Asking what you meant by those words is hardly insulting. You're hyper-defense to me just asking that question is well noted. As for not being interested in discussion, you posting on a message board where the main focus is discussion is rather weird. If all you wanted to do was shout into the wind you could've done that just as easily by opening a window in your house and shouting out of it. The Trump v United States did not in anyway prevent investigation or prosecution of Trump or any other President - it simply laid out the groundwork on how to do that and left it to the lower courts to adjudicate the cases that were being sped up to get to the SCOTUS. Again, reading is fundamental, I highly advise you to exercise that skill, SCOTUS rulings are quite enjoyable to read.

[UNI88]

Fair.

What percentage of those cases involve judge shopping? Not every case presents that opportunity.

Regardless, this still a very hypocritical and radical SCOTUS

What are they hypocritical and radical about? That's a loaded opinion without anything to back it up. Even your article with the "94%" backing of the current administration is lacking with any detail to substantiate that number. If you just want to shout something into the wind, have at it. If you want an actual discussion that has any depth to it then that's a different story.

I think it's fair to question SCOTUS:

It seems that they are overturning a larger percentage of lower court rulings unfavorable to the current administration than previously. Why is that? Are the lower courts misinterpreting the law? Or is SCOTUS?

Why they're using shadow docket rulings more than in the past. Those have little to no explanation of why and they give the trump regime a lot of leeway to to continue their modus operandi while the case continues.

[GannonFan]

What are they hypocritical and radical about? That's a loaded opinion without anything to back it up. Even your article with the "94%" backing of the current administration is lacking with any detail to substantiate that number. If you just want to shout something into the wind, have at it. If you want an actual discussion that has any depth to it then that's a different story.

I think it's fair to question SCOTUS:

It seems that they are overturning a larger percentage of lower court rulings unfavorable to the current administration than previously. Why is that? Are the lower courts misinterpreting the law? Or is SCOTUS?

Why they're using shadow docket rulings more than in the past. Those have little to no explanation of why and they give the trump regime a lot of leeway to to continue their modus operandi while the case continues.

Then let's have that discussion. Start bringing up the cases in question and we can go through them. What are the details?

[kalm]

You’re unable to even track what you just wrote. Playing coy …who me? Insult first? I was asking a sincere question!

I know your arguments on immunity. I’m less interested in sophistry than the reality of what’s actually happening. Start with emoluments clause for gosh darn heck’s sake. Trump clearly took the ruling as a free pass whether it was well intentioned or not. And that’s just one example.

No…please reply with more insults. They really help your argument.

Reading comprehension is critical in life. Again, you said I led with insults. My literal first words (the leading part) in my initial post were "What are they hypocritical and radical about? ". Asking what you meant by those words is hardly insulting. You're hyper-defense to me just asking that question is well noted. As for not being interested in discussion, you posting on a message board where the main focus is discussion is rather weird. If all you wanted to do was shout into the wind you could've done that just as easily by opening a window in your house and shouting out of it. The Trump v United States did not in anyway prevent investigation or prosecution of Trump or any other President - it simply laid out the groundwork on how to do that and left it to the lower courts to adjudicate the cases that were being sped up to get to the SCOTUS. Again, reading is fundamental, I highly advise you to exercise that skill, SCOTUS rulings are quite enjoyable to read.

Read your first two sentences together. The 2nd renders the first rhetorical. You got caught and aren’t honest enough to admit. Oh well. Won’t be the first time.

Your immunity arguments are equally shallow. It wasn’t an originalist and supported initial intent. The results are a presidency that is in constant violation of the laws with zero repercussions. Yet here you are arguing that one man is truly above the law. Neither the constitution or any reasonable American supports this.