Judge Criticizes Trump Administration’s Legal Strategy, Asserts Constitution Must Be Considered

A federal judge recently expressed her frustration with the Trump administration’s “frivolous arguments” and practices of “indefinite detentions,” ultimately siding with noncitizen plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit. Her decision came with a pointed critique of the government’s stance.

Judge Sunshine Sykes, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022 as California’s first Native American federal judge, made her position clear in a detailed ruling. She criticized the Trump administration’s use of “extreme language” in press releases, which claimed to target the “worst of the worst” for deportation, as misleading and not reflective of those actually impacted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.

One notable case mentioned by Sykes was that of Lazaro Maldonado Bautista. Despite having no criminal record and residing in Los Angeles for approximately four years near U.S. citizen relatives, Bautista was arrested in June, detained by ICE, and denied a bond hearing by immigration judges. This case is one among many similar situations, as highlighted by Judge Sykes.

The executive branch has argued that it is justified in enforcing mandatory indefinite detentions of “non-criminal noncitizens” without bond hearings, citing a “new” interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, this stance has been met with legal challenges.

In December, Judge Sykes had already ruled that the DHS policy was “not in accordance with law,” and affirmed the class action plaintiffs’ right to be considered for release on bond by immigration officers. Given the significant number of people in situations similar to Bautista’s, she approved the case to proceed as a nationwide class action.

But the more that rulings went against DHS, Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE, Acting Director Todd Lyons, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in the case — up to and including the judge vacating the DHS policy backing “unlawful” indefinite detentions — the less it seemed to matter, Sykes said.

“On each occasion, and with each ruling being based on a more developed factual record than before, the Court determined the DHS Policy improperly interpreted the INA and that continued detention of Plaintiff Petitioners and those similarly situated was unlawful,” Sykes said. “One might assume that four separate orders issued by a federal district court interpreting a federal statute would make clear that enforcing executive policies premised on a contrary legal interpretation is improper. Remarkably, that has not been the case.”

“Somehow, even after the judicial declaration of law that the DHS was misguided in its act of legal interpretation that nullified portions of a congressionally enacted statute, Respondents still insist they can continue their campaign of illegal action,” she added, calling that position “shameless.”

The judge said that her court was left with “no other option but to uphold its constitutional duty,” as the “threats posed by the executive branch cannot be viewed in isolation.”

“Americans have expressed deep concerns over unlawful, wanton acts by the executive branch. It is not the ‘worst of the worst’ that are swept into the nationwide and reckless violations of the law by the executive branch,” Sykes continued. “In the past weeks, the Government detained Adrian Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son without a valid warrant. Beyond its terror against noncitizens, the executive branch has extended its violence on its own citizens, killing two American citizens — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — in Minnesota.”

Next, the judge cited the continued detention of plaintiffs as “ample evidence” of the government’s “noncompliance” with her judgment, slammed “frivolous arguments that aim to insulate unlawful policies from judicial review,” and refused to assume a posture of judicial “helplessness.”

Sykes blasted the Trump administration for deploying a “deliberately dense three-step maneuver to reach their core absurd conclusion that no further relief is warranted.”

Here is the Trump administration’s tactic for lulling courts to sleep, according to the judge:

Step 1: Identify an immaterial difference between two things that are functionally the same.

Step 2: Insist that the immaterial difference is so consequential that it can violate separation of powers.

Finally, and most importantly,

Step 3: Make sure to never mention the Constitution with the hope that a federal court will not notice.

Sykes did notice — and in parting shots she scolded the Trump administration about the damage done.

“Respondents have already wasted valuable time and resources. Worst of all, not only does detention without due process deprive members of the Bond Eligible Class of their liberty, economic stability, and fundamental dignity, but it also harms their families, communities, and the fabric of this very nation,” she wrote, vacating a Board of Immigration Appeals decision the government relied on to deny bond hearings and ordering that the plaintiffs be put on notice “classwide.”