As this editor wrote in a post earlier today, he needs to program a keyboard shortcut so that typing "jbt" automatically expands to "judge blocks Trump." We've had a judge order a halt to Trump's deportations to El Salvador, demanding that the flights already over international waters turn around and return what Rep. Jamie Raskin called that "so-called plane full of gangbangers" to the United States. An activist 9th Circuit judge blocked President Trump from discharging transgender troops even after they’ve been medically disqualified.
Earlier this month, a judge blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary protected status for 350,000 Venezuelans in the United States. (Note the T in "temporary protected status" — it was due to expire anyway.) As we reported just a couple of weeks ago, a Massachusetts federal judge stopped the Trump administration from yanking the legal status of more than 530,000 Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan nationals who were flown into the country by President Joe Biden with the help of the CBP One app.
On Thursday, a judge blocked the Trump administration's efforts to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
But wait, there's more:
BREAKING: Federal judge William Orrick (Obama appointee) in California has blocked the Trump administration from terminating federal funds for sanctuary jurisdictions. He writes in part:
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) April 24, 2025
“The Cities and Counties have also demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm. The threat…
… to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the Cities and Counties and the communities they serve.”
Serious question: What are the minimum qualifications to be appointed a federal judge? This editor's no lawyer, but that's some pretty specious reasoning. The whole idea of threatening to withhold funds is to force sanctuary jurisdictions to cooperate with ICE or suffer "irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty." They're already blowing their budgets on harboring illegal aliens.
What “constitutional right” does a city or county have to federal money?
— Clint Buckingham (@clintbuckingham) April 24, 2025
Ignore the judge's order. Federal funds are never assured and cities and states should not rely on them.
— Brent D Gifford (@brentdgifford) April 24, 2025
Pretty special that these jurisdictions can ignore the law and can’t be punished for it
— Ian Miller (@ianmSC) April 24, 2025
Nevermind the fact that they brought this on themselves.
— Hermit⛺ (@CryptoHermit_) April 24, 2025
The judicial coup continues
— Hal-10000 (@Ribes1000) April 24, 2025
Well, if they stopped being sanctuary jurisdictions, there would be no threat to withheld funding, and therefore no irreparable injury. And yes, @clintbuckingham, what constitutional right does a city or county have to federal money?
— Jennifer Faines (@jfaines) April 24, 2025
Only an uber-liberal judge would find a Constitutional right to federal funding for cities that ignore federal law.
— IT Guy (@ITGuy1959) April 24, 2025
This is completely out-of-control.
Bukele is correct. This is a Judicial Branch coup.
— Just Brad Hobbs in B'ham (@windrdr_hobbs) April 24, 2025
By this logic, no one should face fines or imprisonment for their crimes because it would negatively impact their finances & employment. Orrick’s ruling is illogical & political.
— Mark Starrett 🇺🇸 (@MTStarrett) April 24, 2025
Maybe Congress could exercise some of its authority, at least while the Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate.
I, for one, am thankful Congress has taken a much needed break here. I much prefer being disappointed by their inaction to this judicial overreach when they're away than when they're sitting on their hands in DC.
— Nicomachus (@NicoEthicsSage) April 24, 2025
We really are living the inverse of "The Handmaid's Tale" — the authoritarians are wearing black robes instead of red.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member