Judges Block Immigration Enforcement Over 1,600 Times, Drawing Fire from Stephen Miller
The recent analysis of immigration enforcement reveals a striking pattern. Federal courts have blocked or overturned immigration actions more than 1,600 times during the Trump administration, leading to intense criticism from Stephen Miller, a key adviser who has long been instrumental in shaping the administration’s immigration policy.
Miller’s remarks underline a crucial point: “No democracy can function this way.” His statement reflects frustration over what he perceives as judicial overreach. He argues that the courts are stepping outside their assigned role by nullifying enforcement actions that should be under the purview of the executive branch. He notes that the Immigration and Nationality Act was designed to limit judicial involvement in immigration matters, claiming it strips the courts of jurisdiction.
Since the onset of the Trump presidency, the administration has faced immense legal challenges in immigration-related matters, with only about ten percent of their lawsuits ending in success. According to the Institute for Policy Integrity, this underwhelming statistic highlights the significant obstacles faced by the Trump administration in its enforcement agenda.
Recent court rulings have continued this trend, with judges halting actions aimed at rolling back immigration protections like Temporary Protected Status (TPS). A notable case, ruled by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, blocked efforts to terminate TPS for Venezuelan nationals. Judge Chen expressed that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in arguing that the termination was “unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus.” This ruling allowed thousands of Venezuelans to maintain their legal status in the U.S., prompting further claims from Miller about judicial overreach.
The ongoing debate regarding the judiciary’s role in immigration policy raises essential questions. Miller insists that the courts should refrain from interfering, while legal scholars contend otherwise. Michael Gerhardt, a law professor, argues, “There is absolutely nothing about an immigration policy that… insulates it from judicial review.” His viewpoint, echoed by other constitutional experts, challenges the notion that Congress can eliminate all court oversight, especially in cases of constitutional violations.
Federal courts frequently cite the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when they find immigration agency decisions lacking legal justification. This act establishes a framework that requires federal agencies to base their decisions on evidence and established legal standards. Courts have used it to reject actions deemed “arbitrary and capricious,” suggesting that there are checks on executive power even amid aggressive enforcement attempts.
Proponents of Trump’s immigration policies argue that courts leverage the APA and constitutional questions as tools to weaken enforcement. The Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), commonly referred to as “Remain in Mexico,” faced substantial challenges even after receiving a selective endorsement from the Supreme Court in 2022. Lower courts imposed procedural requirements, complicating the administration’s efforts to implement its immigration strategy.
Miller voiced his concerns about judicial activism, labeling the judges as “activist judges.” He remarked that despite the number of judges appointed by Trump, courts would still stall enforcement through injunctions. In his eyes, these delays render immigration laws ineffective. “The law means nothing,” he insisted, underscoring the sense of urgency he associates with border control.
A supporter amplified Miller’s concerns on social media, stating, “Stephen Miller fumes after activist judges OVER 1,600 TIMES ‘unlawfully’ order the RELEASE of illegal aliens. ‘No democracy can function this way.’ He’s right. We need to purge the courts if we want to keep a republic.” This sentiment captures the frustration surrounding the numerous court interventions and their implications for policy.
Specific cases, like that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, illustrate the tension between judicial oversight and executive action. Following a court ruling that allowed Garcia to return after an alleged wrongful deportation, the Trump administration’s resistance led to confrontations with the judiciary. Judge Paula Xinis rebuked the administration for withholding information, emphasizing the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings.
As the Trump administration increasingly turned to emergency powers, including the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, Miller contended that the Constitution permits exceptional measures during crises. However, many judges have ruled against this interpretation, viewing immigration pressures as insufficient justification for extreme measures. Judge Fernando Rodriguez declared a proclamation used to justify detentions unlawful, showcasing the judiciary’s commitment to holding the executive accountable.
The courts have also critiqued the administration for noncompliance. Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. District Court articulated a finding of “bad faith” after the administration violated a restraining order regarding deportation flights. His pointed questioning of DOJ attorneys reflected the judiciary’s skepticism toward the administration’s legal interpretations.
This ongoing clash raises critical questions: how much influence should the judiciary wield over immigration policy? The Constitution clearly outlines Congress’s role in setting immigration laws, while enforcement powers rest with the executive. However, the courts are empowered to act when policies infringe upon existing laws or violate constitutional protections.
From 2017 to 2021, numerous Trump-era policies experienced delays or reversals based on legal scrutiny. High-profile cases included family separations, a travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim countries, and restrictions on asylum claims. Even with a conservative judiciary in place, rulings have often favored legal standards over administration directives, reflecting a structural disconnect between swift policy enforcement and legal frameworks that govern executive power.
The low success rate in court for immigration policies underscores the challenges faced by aggressive enforcement efforts. Legal director Bethany Davis Noll succinctly pointed out, “If you don’t follow the law, you’re going to lose in court—no matter who appointed the judge.” Both Miller and the Trump administration’s allies continue to push for more expansive executive authority, seeking to reduce judicial oversight as a means of taking control of immigration policy.
The evolving landscape of immigration enforcement suggests a persistent struggle between the branches of government. Future Republican administrations may learn from these experiences, armed with strategies to navigate judicial challenges that they view as impediments. How the courts will respond to claims of executive authority will significantly impact the direction of immigration discussions in Washington going forward.
"*" indicates required fields
