Share and Follow
Inset: U.S. President Donald Trump stands with newly sworn in U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett during a ceremonial swearing-in event on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 26, 2020 (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images). Background: Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States arrive at Simon Bolivar International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, on Monday, Feb. 10, 2025 (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos).
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from deporting eight asylum-seekers who say they are fleeing the horrors in their home countries.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, a Barack Obama appointee, issued an administrative stay blocking the deportations as the court seeks further information from the U.S. Justice Department on Friday before another hearing scheduled for Monday.
Moss became the third on the bench, along with a federal appellate panel in Massachusetts and U.S. District Court Judge Loren AliKhan, to cite a concurrent opinion from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by Trump, in issuing administrative stays on Trump executive orders.
In the stay ruling, Moss quoted Barrett’s comments that administrative stays can be used for “freez[ing] legal proceedings until the court can rule on a party’s request for expedited relief.”
“Defendants shall not remove Plaintiffs A.M., Z.A., T.A., A.T., M.A., N.S., B.R., and G.A. during the pendency of the stay,” Moss wrote in the order.
The stay is part of a lawsuit filed earlier this month by a group of noncitizens currently in U.S. custody, who face imminent removal under Trump’s Inauguration Day Proclamation that declared an “invasion” by noncitizens at the U.S.-Mexico border and forbids noncitizens from invoking their right to apply for asylum in the U.S.
More Law&Crime Coverage: Justice Barrett is playing a surprising role in repeatedly thwarting Trump’s massive federal funding freeze
The lawsuit argues that Trump ignored federal laws that require people who have “credible fear” of persecution and violence in their home countries to be given a chance to seek shelter in the U.S. legally.
Among the plaintiffs is a couple who fled Afghanistan with their two young children, fearing persecution by the Taliban because of their political views and perceived support for the U.S., court documents said. Another plaintiff survived kidnapping, rape, and torture by a cartel in Ecuador that targeted her because of her ethnicity and family ties. One man was repeatedly jailed and tortured in Egypt by the ruling dictatorship because of his pro-democracy views and fears that he would be tortured again if removed.
At least one plaintiff might’ve been sent home before the administrative stay could be issued. The order from Moss notes: “At the hearing on February 20, 2025, Plaintiffs and Defendants both indicated that Plaintiff N.S. may have been removed between the filing of Plaintiff’s emergency motion and the Court’s entry of the administrative stay. If that turns out to be the case, the stay shall not apply to N.S. but will apply with respect to all other listed Plaintiffs.”
The woman, who was from Ecuador, had fled her former partner who was a police officer and called her anti-indigenous slurs while raping her, beating her, and holding his gun to her head, court documents said. She fears that he will kill her.
More Law&Crime Coverage: ‘Reflects a first-blush judgment’: Biden-appointed judge uses Justice Barrett’s words to block Trump’s funding freeze on federal aid
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, one of the groups that filed the complaint on behalf of Florence Project, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), called Trump’s proclamation “an unprecedented power grab that will put countless lives in danger.”
“No president has the authority to unilaterally override the protections Congress has afforded those fleeing danger,” Gelernt said.
Laura St. John, the legal director for the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, another group representing the plaintiffs, blasted the president’s proclamation.
“The Florence Project is proud to challenge this unprecedented and illegal overreach, so that our present and future clients who are in need of protection in this country may have an opportunity to seek that relief,” she said.
At the hearing on Thursday, Justice Department attorney Brian Ward argued that Moss had no authority to intervene, contending that federal district courts, under immigration laws, have been largely barred from playing a role in stopping removal proceedings, Politico reported.
“We are all a little bit in the dark,” Moss reportedly said.
