More than 220 judges have now rejected the Trump admin’s mass detention policy

Politico ^ | 11/28/2025 07:00 AM EST | Kyle Cheney

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The number has skyrocketed in recent weeks and includes at least 20 judges appointed by Trump himself.

The Trump administration’s bid to systematically lock up nearly all immigrants facing deportation proceedings has led to a fierce — and mounting — rejection by courts across the country.

That effort, which began with an abrupt policy change by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on July 8, has led to a tidal wave of emergency lawsuits after ICE’s targets were arrested at workplaces, courthouses or check-ins with immigration officers. Many have lived in the U.S. for years, and sometimes decades, without incident and have been pursuing asylum or other forms of legal status.

At least 225 judges have ruled in more than 700 cases that the administration’s new policy, which also deprives people of an opportunity to seek release from an immigration court, is a likely violation of law and the right to due process. Those judges were appointed by all modern presidents — including 23 by Trump himself — and hail from at least 35 states, according to a POLITICO analysis of thousands of recent cases. The number of judges opposing the administration’s position has more than doubled in less than a month.

In contrast, only eight judges nationwide, including six appointed by Trump, have sided with the administration’s new mass detention policy.

Courts, increasingly aware of the one-sided rejection of the administration’s policy, have grown exasperated by the deluge of litigation that has flooded their dockets. Some have made a partial accounting of the...

[Ann Archy]

Judicial CABAL!

[NorthMountain]

the Supreme Court

This is the same collection of esteemed jurists who:

1) Don't know what "shall not be infringed" means.
2) Think that making, selling, and buying an item within one State constitutes "interstate commerce".
3) Think that the Constitution somehow authorizes Congress to create, and the Executive to operate, a ponzi scheme.
4) Thinks that two dudes buggering each other constitutes a marriage.

So your quote is an explanation of why the lower courts engage in lawless stupidity ... but it doesn't change the fact that their rulings are in fact stupid and lawless. The entire court system views the Constitution as an obstacle to be circumvented and an excuse when convenient ... all for the purpose of maintaining or expanding government power.

[HKMk23]

Oh.

Politico.

‘nuf said.