The judiciary is actively serving as a check on the executive branch's immigration enforcement tactics. A federal judge's injunction against ICE arrests at courthouses, based on the government's procedural missteps under the Administrative Procedure Act, exemplifies how courts are scrutinizing and limiting executive authority.
The administration is shifting immigration enforcement beyond physical removal to include financial and administrative pressure. This is evident in the dramatic increase in civil fines against immigrants (totaling over $36 billion) and the consideration of forcing banks to verify customers' immigration status.
The process for appointing federal judges has become highly politicized, with the Trump administration reportedly instructing nominees to refuse cooperation with the American Bar Association's vetting process. Nominees are also consistently declining to affirm the outcome of the 2020 presidential election during confirmation hearings.
A strategic conflict is playing out between aggressive federal immigration enforcement and the protective policies of "sanctuary" cities. Local leaders face a difficult choice: non-cooperation may shield some residents but risks provoking an even harsher federal crackdown, creating a high-stakes game of political calculation.
The episode reveals significant communication breakdowns within the federal government, such as the DOJ misrepresenting an ICE memo to a federal court. This error, attributed to a lack of coordination between the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York and the main DOJ, directly led to a legal defeat for the government.
Keep pulling the thread on Leon Fresco.