The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will allow, for now, the Trump administration to terminate temporary protections for a group of 350,000 Venezuelans, striking down a lower court’s order that blocked the process.

The order still means the group of Venezuelans on Temporary Protected Status — a designation given to nationals from countries deemed too dangerous to return to remain in the U.S. — will be able to continue to challenge in court the end of their work permits and the possibility of removal. But they no longer have protections from deportation. 

No justices signed onto the ruling, which is typical in cases brought before the high court on an emergency basis, but liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted she would have denied the request.

TPS status for that group of Venezuelans — a portion of Venezuelans living in the United States, not all of them — was set to end on April 7 under a move by the Trump administration.

But U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California in March blocked Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to vacate an extension of TPS protections that had been put in place by the Biden administration until October 2026.

The case is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chen, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, blocked the Trump administration from removing protections for that group of Venezuelans on the basis that Noem’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious,” and potentially motivated by racism.

“Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism,” Chen wrote in his order.

Noem cited gang activity as her reason for not extending TPS for the group of 350,000 Venezuelans, who came to the United States in 2023.

A second group of 250,000 Venezuelans who were granted TPS in 2021 will have their work and deportation protections expire in September. Chen’s order did not apply to the second group of Venezuelans.

Those with TPS have deportation protections and are allowed to work and live in the United States for 18 months, unless extended by the DHS secretary.

Democrats criticized Monday’s decision, including Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.

“Ending protections for Venezuelans fleeing Maduro’s regime is cruel, short-sighted, and destabilizing,” he wrote on social media.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington state, wrote on social media that Venezuelans “face extreme oppression, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, and torture — the exact type of situation that requires our government to provide TPS.”

Monday’s order is one of several immigration-related emergency requests from the Trump administration before the Supreme Court.

Last week, the high court heard oral arguments that stemmed from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

And justices in a separate case, again, denied the Trump administration from resuming the deportations of Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, some of them masked, work alongside Harrison County, Miss., sheriff’s deputies to make arrests in an investigation into illegal immigration and cockfighting in early May. States are increasingly setting policy for sheriffs on how much they can cooperate with ICE at local jails. (Photo by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

Local sheriffs are on the front lines in deciding whether to participate in the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans. But states increasingly are making the choice for them.

More and more, sheriffs’ hands are tied no matter whether they do — or don’t — want to help with deportations, though they often get the blame when conservatives draw up lists of sanctuary cities.

“‘Naughty lists,’ as we call them, are not super helpful here,” said Patrick Royal, a spokesperson for the National Sheriffs’ Association. “We all know there are places like Colorado where you can’t [help with deportations], and places like North Carolina where you have to.”

Cooperation between sheriffs and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement lies at the heart of the Trump administration’s immigration detention policy. The administration plans to punish noncooperative jurisdictions with funding cuts — though many legal experts agree that cooperation is voluntary unless state or local laws say otherwise.

Sheriffs, who typically run local jails, must decide what to do when faced with immigration detainers — requests from ICE to hold onto incarcerated people up to two extra days so ICE officers can show up and arrest them. ICE issues those detainers when the agency reviews fingerprints sent electronically for background checks as part of the jail booking process.

Otherwise, arrested suspects who post bond or are otherwise released by a judge might go free despite their immigration status, prompting ICE in some cases to pursue them in the community.

In North Carolina, Sheriff Garry McFadden ran on a platform of limiting cooperation with ICE  when he was elected in Mecklenburg County, home to Charlotte, in 2018. But today, McFadden must comply with detainers because of a state law passed last year.

In a now-retracted Facebook post, U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis in late April accused Mecklenburg and several other North Carolina counties of “shielding criminal illegal immigrants” as sanctuary jurisdictions. Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, said in the post he was writing federal legislation to prosecute sanctuary jurisdictions.

“You can’t say we’re a sanctuary county and have state laws that say we have to work with ICE. You can’t have both,” McFadden said. He added that he’d like more choice about whether to comply with detainers. A federal funding cutoff would endanger important jail programs such as rape counseling, he said.

“Everybody’s focused on immigration like that’s the biggest fire, and nobody wants to address the other things. The losers will be the prisoners who need all these services we provide,” McFadden said.

Conservative sheriffs in Democratic-controlled states also can be frustrated by state policy on detainers. Sheriff Lew Evangelidis of Worcester County, Massachusetts, said he’s been criticized for releasing prisoners wanted by ICE but sometimes has no choice: A 2017 state Supreme Court ruling prohibits holding prisoners based on detainers.

“If they [ICE] want this person and consider them a threat to public safety, then I want that person out of my community. I want to keep my community safe,” said Evangelidis. He supported a Republican-sponsored effort in the state legislature to allow 12-hour holds for ICE if a judge determines the prisoner is a threat to public safety, but the amendment was voted down in April.

States act on detainers

Many experts agree that ICE detainers can be legally ignored if states allow sheriffs to do that.

“That detainer request is just that, a request, it’s not a requirement,” said Cassandra Charles, a staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, which is opposing Louisiana’s lawsuit to reverse a court-ordered ban on cooperation between Orleans Parish and ICE.

The general counsel for the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association, Eddie Caldwell, agreed that the detainers are voluntary under federal law.

The association supports a state bill now under consideration that would require not only the 48-hour detention but also a notice sent 48 hours before release to let ICE know the clock is running. The proposal has passed the House.

The notification matters, Caldwell said, because there can be criminal proceedings that take weeks or months, so ICE in many cases doesn’t realize the 48-hour window has started.

Tillis’ office said the senator’s disagreement with McFadden, a Democrat, and other sheriffs is about that notification.

“It’s not necessarily that [sheriffs] are breaking the law, but rather making it as difficult as possible for ICE to take prisoners into custody by refusing to do some basic things. Notification is important,” said Daniel Keylin, a senior adviser to Tillis.

States including California, Colorado and Massachusetts ban compliance with the ICE detainers, on the general principle that it’s not enough reason to hold people in jails when they’re otherwise free to go because of bail or an end to their criminal cases. Those three states have made recent moves to defend or fine-tune their rules.

California’s attorney general also has issued guidance to local jurisdictions based on a 2017 state law limiting cooperation with immigration authorities. That law withstood a court challenge under the first Trump administration.

Colorado has a law against holding prisoners more than six hours longer than required, and a new bill sent to Democratic Gov. Jared Polis last week would specify that even those six hours can’t be for the purpose of an immigration detainer.

Iowa, Tennessee and Texas are among the states requiring cooperation with detainers.

And Florida has gone further, requiring sheriffs to actively help ICE write detainers though official agreements in which local agencies sign up to help enforce immigration laws.

Cooperation boosts arrests

Such cooperation makes a big difference, experts say — jails are the easiest place to pick up immigrants for deportation, and when local sheriffs and police help out, there are more arrests.

“A larger share of ICE arrests and deportations are happening in places where local law enforcement is cooperative with ICE,” said Julia Gelatt, associate director for the Migration Policy Institute’s U.S. Immigration Policy Program, speaking at a recent webinar.

“A declining share of arrests and deportations are happening from places like California, where there are really strict limitations on local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE,” she added.

ICE is making about 600 immigration arrests daily, twice the rate as during the last year of the Biden administration, said Muzaffar Chishti, an attorney and policy expert at the Migration Policy Institute, speaking at the same event.

Reports on deportations are incomplete, Chishti said, but he estimated the current administration is on track to deport half a million people this year and is trying to get that number higher.

“The Trump administration has not been able to change the laws that are on the books, because only Congress can do that,” Chishti said. “It’s going to take congressional action for the Trump administration to achieve its aim of higher [arrest and deportation] numbers.”

President Donald Trump has added more pressure, last month requesting a list from Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of sanctuary cities, which he says would face funding cuts. The administration also has sued some states, including Colorado, Illinois and New York, over their policies.

Asked for comment on the legality of funding cutoffs for sanctuary policies, Bondi’s office referred to a February memo in which she promised to “end funding to state and local jurisdictions that unlawfully interfere with federal law enforcement operations.” The memo cites a federal law saying local officials “may not prohibit, or in any way restrict” communication about immigration status.

Local jurisdictions in Connecticut, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington joined a February lawsuit led by the city and county of San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California against a Trump administration executive order calling for defunding cities with sanctuary policies, calling the order “illegal and authoritarian.”

In April, a U.S. district court in California issued a preliminary injunction in that case preventing any funding cutoff over sanctuary policies to the cities and counties in the lawsuit. And on Friday, the federal judge, William Orrick, ruled that the injunction applies to any list of sanctuary jurisdictions the administration may target for funding cuts.

Trump’s new executive order seeking the list cannot be used as “an end run” around Orrick’s injunction, the judge wrote, while he decides the legality of detainer policies and other issues.

“The litigation may not proceed with the coercive threat to end all federal funding hanging over the Cities and Counties’ heads like the sword of Damocles,” Orrick wrote.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro,  right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center during a tour of the CECOT prison on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador.  (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Two federal judges Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelans, limiting the rulings to Colorado and a New York district.

U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Alvin K. Hellerstein found that President Donald Trump’s invocation of the wartime law was likely not valid, because there is no “existence of a ‘war,’ ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion,’” as required by the Alien Enemies Act statute.

A similar order was made by U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado Charlotte N. Sweeney, who noted the Trump administration likely exceeded the scope of the Alien Enemies Act in its use of it.

Hellerstein, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, also reiterated in his order that anyone in the United States – including those who are not citizens – is entitled to due process.

He noted that the Venezuelan nationals subject to the Alien Enemies Act were deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, CECOT, “​​with faint hope of process or return.”

“The sweep for removal is ongoing, extending to the litigants in this case and others, thwarted only by order of this and other federal courts,” Hellerstein wrote. “The destination, El Salvador, a country paid to take our aliens, is neither the country from which the aliens came, nor to which they wish to be removed. But they are taken there, and there to remain, indefinitely, in a notoriously evil jail, unable to communicate with counsel, family or friends.”

Two Venezuelan men who feared they would be subjected to the proclamation brought the suit in the Southern District of New York. It’s now a class to cover any Venezuelan potentially subject to the proclamation.

Sweeney, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, also ordered the suit should cover a class of people.

The New York area in which Trump officials would be barred from using the wartime law includes New York City, the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx and Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan and Westchester counties. 

Multiple rulings against administration

This is the third preliminary injunction granted by federal judges against Trump’s use of the wartime law in a court’s district. The president invoked the Alien Enemies Act to subject for removal any Venezuelan national 14 and older with suspected ties to the Tren de Aragua gang.

Tuesday’s rulings are similar to another out of Texas, where Trump-appointed Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. struck down the Trump administration’s use of the wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals in the Southern District of Texas.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is at the forefront of challenges against the Trump administration’s use in March of the Alien Enemies Act, praised the preliminary injunction in New York.

“The court joined several others in correctly recognizing the president cannot simply declare that there’s been an invasion and then invoke a wartime authority during peacetime to send individuals to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador without even giving them due process,” said Lee Gelernt, lead ACLU attorney on the case.

The ACLU has filed lawsuits against the use of the wartime law in federal courts in Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington, D.C.

Prison officers stand guard at a cell block at maximum security penitentiary CECOT  on April 4, 2025 in Tecoluca, San Vicente, El Salvador.  (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

BALTIMORE — A federal judge in Maryland Tuesday will for 48 hours pause her own order to require the federal government to facilitate the return of an asylum seeker mistakenly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, while the court waits for the Trump administration’s anticipated appeal of her decision.

“I am simply skeptical that we’re going to get … compliance or facilitation based only on this court’s order without allowing it to go to the next level,” said U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, nominated by President Donald Trump in 2018, at a hearing. She also indicated she was concerned the asylum seeker was denied due process, a major question as lawyers challenge Trump administration deportations.

Richard Ingebretsen, arguing on behalf of the Department of Justice, said the Trump administration plans to appeal Gallagher’s earlier order to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It’s the second case of a wrongly deported man sent to El Salvador’s brutal Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, prison, following the high-profile case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The Maryland man was erroneously deported there despite a 2019 court order barring such action.

That case is now in closed proceedings before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt, Maryland, as discovery and depositions from officials interviewed under oath about the case continue. The Department of Justice and the White House have strongly fought the return of Abrego Garcia.

Earlier agreement protected asylum seeker

In the case heard in Maryland on Tuesday, the 20-year-old man who was sent to El Salvador is referred to by the pseudonym “Cristian” in court documents. In 2019, he came to the United States as an unaccompanied minor from Venezuela to apply for asylum.

Under a settlement agreement at the time, Cristian, along with a class of other asylum seekers, could not be deported until their cases were decided by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. His asylum case has not yet been decided.

But Cristian was taken from the U.S. on one of three deportation flights to the CECOT prison in mid-March.

Two of those flights contained Venezuelan men deported under a 1798 law known as the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration invoked the wartime law to apply to any Venezuelan national 14 and older who is suspected of having ties to the Tren de Aragua gang.

Ingebretsen argued that Cristian has ties to the gang, and Tuesday’s hearing for a period was closed to the public — put under seal— so Gallagher could be shown that evidence.

In a declaration, Acting Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement Robert Cerna said Cristian was subject to the Alien Enemies Act because in January he was convicted of possessing cocaine.

Judge issued order for return

Gallagher wrote in an April 23 order that the case before her relates to that of Abrego Garcia and that “like Judge Xinis in the Abrego Garcia matter, this court will order Defendants to facilitate Cristian’s return to the United States so that he can receive the process he was entitled to under the parties’ binding Settlement Agreement.”

Gallagher added in her order that the federal government must also show “a good faith request to the government of El Salvador to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States to await the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits by USCIS.”

Ingebretsen said that the State Department has been made aware of her order, but he did not give any details on steps taken to facilitate Cristian’s return.

“The government’s view is that further compliance should be put on hold,” Ingebretsen said.

Attorneys, on behalf of the 2019 class, are pushing for declarations from the federal government on steps taken to facilitate Cristian’s return, citing concerns he’s been in CECOT for almost two months.

List of detainees

Kevin DeJong, one of those attorneys for the class, asked Gallagher to require the Trump administration to produce a list of the class members, to determine if any more of them have been wrongly deported.

DeJong said another class member — separate from Cristian — has been removed.

“If we don’t know if a class member has been removed, and we don’t know about it, there’s nothing we can do to bring a motion to enforce,” he said.

He is asking the court to order the federal government to provide a list because the Trump administration’s DOJ will only notify migrants’ lawyers of class members removed under Title 8 deportation. Cristian was removed under the Alien Enemies Act, or Title 50.

“We need to know if any class members have been removed for any reason other than Title 8,” DeJong said. “We’re concerned that there are more.”

Gallagher seemed skeptical that she had the authority to do so, as the settlement does not mention a way for a list to be made up.

“It is an unusual settlement agreement in that we don’t have a defined list of class members, a defined way of identifying who is and is not a member,” she said.

Gallagher added that the settlement agreement was “drafted with some degree” of “trust that the government would be acting in good faith and would maintain this list itself.”

‘Process is important’

In the Abrego Garcia case, the Trump administration has argued that because he is a national of El Salvador, he is in that government’s custody and cannot be returned, despite the U.S. paying up to $15 million to El Salvador to detain roughly 300 men at CECOT.

Experts have raised concerns that U.S. foreign assistance funds to El Salvador from the State Department violate the Leahy Law, which bars financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons — that face credible allegations of gross human rights violations.

However, the president has contradicted his own administration, arguing that he has the ability to order Abrego Garcia returned to the U.S. Trump has said he is not willing to do so because he believes Abrego Garcia has gang ties, an argument repeated by multiple members of the administration.

In DOJ filings, government attorneys argued that because Cristian was designated for removal under the Alien Enemies Act, he could no longer be part of the 2019 class settlement and the government is therefore not violating the settlement.

On Tuesday, Ingebretsen added that if Cristian were returned to the U.S., his asylum application would be denied by USCIS.

Gallagher rejected that argument and said that based on the settlement, Cristian was allowed a certain form of due process to remain in the U.S. while his asylum case was pending.

“This is not a case about where or not Cristian will receive asylum, the issue is of process,” Gallagher said. “Process is important. We don’t skip to the end.” 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem walks past reporters after doing a TV interview with Fox News outside of the White House on March 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced Monday that the agency will provide $1,000 in what it called “travel assistance” to people in the United States without permanent legal status if they self deport.

It’s the latest attempt by DHS to try to meet the Trump administration’s goal of removing 1 million migrants without permanent legal status from the country. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem touted the option as cost-effective.

“If you are here illegally, self-deportation is the best, safest and most cost-effective way to leave the United States to avoid arrest,” Noem said in a statement. “This is the safest option for our law enforcement, aliens and is a 70% savings for US taxpayers.”

It’s unclear from which part of the DHS budget the funding for the travel assistance is coming, as it would roughly cost $1 billion to reimburse up to $1,000 to meet the goal of removing 1 million people.

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

President Donald Trump gave his support for the move Monday afternoon, according to White House pool reports. 

“We’re going to get them a beautiful flight back to where they came from,” the president said.

Self-deportation would be facilitated by the CBP Home app, which was used by the Biden administration to allow asylum seekers to make appointments with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The payment would apparently not be made in advance. DHS said that once those who use the app to self deport arrive in their home country, they will receive a travel stipend of $1,000.

According to DHS, the Trump administration has deported 152,000 people since taking office in January. The Biden administration last year deported 195,000 people from February to April, according to DHS data.

DHS said already one migrant has used the program to book a flight from Chicago to Honduras.

“Additional tickets have already been booked for this week and the following week,” the agency said in a statement.

The Trump administration has rolled out several programs to facilitate mass self-deportations, such as a registry to require immigrants in the country without legal authorization to register with the federal government.

Immigrants who don’t register with the federal government could face steep fines and a potential prison sentence. 

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., right, meets in El Salvador on April 17, 2025, with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident who was erroneously deported to El Salvador by ICE agents in March. (Photo courtesy Van Hollen's office)

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains in prison in El Salvador after he was mistakenly deported more than a month ago, and Senate Democrats said Thursday they will file a privileged resolution that would require the State Department to report on human rights conditions in CECOT,  the brutal 40,000-capacity facility where Abrego Garcia was first incarcerated.

The resolution also would force the Trump administration to detail its steps to comply with court orders on the removal of Abrego Garcia and other immigrants from the United States.

The announcement of the resolution came after President Donald Trump, during an ABC News interview that aired Tuesday, acknowledged that if he wanted to, he could secure the return of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

However, Trump then refused to do so, alleging Abrego Garcia has gang ties. He pointed to an altered photograph of Abrego Garcia’s knuckles that showed them displaying the characters “MS-13.”

When ABC News journalist Terry Moran pointed out the photo was photoshopped, Trump argued that it wasn’t.

“Why don’t you just say, ‘Yes, he does,’” Trump said to Moran, referring to the MS-13 tattoo. Moran did not reply and moved to another topic.

The Department of Justice has claimed that Abrego Garcia is a leader in the MS-13 gang, but has not provided evidence in court of those connections. Abrego Garcia was granted deportation protections by an immigration judge in 2019 over concerns he would experience violence by gangs if returned to his home country of El Salvador.

The U.S. Supreme Court, an appeals court and a district court all have upheld that Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who the Trump administration admitted was mistakenly deported to a notorious prison, must be returned.

“Donald Trump should stop trampling on constitutional rights of people who reside in America, and the government of El Salvador should stop conspiring with the Trump administration to violate the constitutional rights of those who reside in America, including Abrego Garcia,” Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen said at a press conference on the Senate resolution.

The Supreme Court last month ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia, but stopped short of requiring it and sent the case back to a federal judge to clarify how the return could be “effectuated.”

The case is now in closed proceedings before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland as discovery and depositions from officials interviewed under oath about Abrego Garcia’s case continue. Xinis on Wednesday denied the Trump administration’s request for another extension to provide information on Abrego Garcia.

$6 million payment 

The resolution, backed by Van Hollen, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, would require the State Department to issue a human rights report on El Salvador.

It also specifically asks for a report on the prison known as Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, where Abrego Garcia was initially sent in March, along with nearly 300 other men deported from the U.S.

The State Department issued a 2023 report on human rights conditions in El Salvador, which noted that there were reports of “systemic abuse in the prison system, including beatings by guards and the use of electric shocks.”

If the resolution manages to pass in the Republican-controlled Senate and House, and the State Department doesn’t issue a human rights report within 30 days, then any foreign assistance to El Salvador would be canceled, Kaine said.

The Trump administration has stated that it’s paying El Salvador $6 million to detain the men at CECOT.

Van Hollen said of that funding, the Trump administration has paid El Salvador about $4 million so far to detain the men and plans to pay as much as $15 million.

Experts have raised concerns that the foreign assistance funds to El Salvador from the State Department violate the Leahy Law, which bars financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations.

Van Hollen meeting in El Salvador

Van Hollen also pushed back on the Trump administration’s insistence that because Abrego Garcia is in El Salvador’s custody, he cannot be returned.

Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador last month seeking a meeting with Abrego Garcia, said during that trip he spoke with El Salvador Vice President Félix Augusto Antonio Ulloa. Van Hollen said Ulloa told him “the only reason the government of El Salvador is holding (Abrego Garcia) is because the Trump administration is paying (El Salvador) to do so.”

Van Hollen was initially denied a visit with Abrego Garcia. But he was eventually able to secure an in-person meeting under the close supervision of Salvadoran officials.

Abrego Garcia appeared with Van Hollen in civilian clothes — a stark difference from a video released by the Trump administration that showed Abrego Garcia in a prison uniform and being roughly handled by Salvadoran officials.

In response to the in-person meeting, the White House wrote on its official social media account that Abrego Garcia “is NOT coming back.”

Van Hollen said he has not had any update on the condition of Abrego Garcia since the visit to El Salvador.

Message for Bukele

During El Salvador President Nayib Bukele’s first-ever visit to the Oval Office in April, he declined to return Abrego Garcia. In that same meeting, Trump asked Bukele if he would take “homegrown” criminals, meaning U.S. citizens.

Kaine said that he had a message for the president of El Salvador if he accepts U.S. citizens for incarceration.

“You might think it’s cute right now to grab attention by a bromance with President Trump,” he said, adding in Spanish that any alliance with Trump will be short-lived, ending with the conclusion of his term in office. “If you think we’ll forget you violating the human rights of American citizens, you’re wrong,” said Kaine.

Van Hollen added that he, along with Kaine and Schumer, plan to introduce a bill to place sanctions against Bukele and “all those who are part of his government conspiring with Donald Trump to deprive residents of the United States of their constitutional rights.” 

Protesters gather outside the Federal Building in Milwaukee to denounce the arrest of Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Smart, progressive women pose a serious threat to MAGA supremacy. Just ask Elon Musk, who wasted millions of dollars in Wisconsin trying to win a seat on the state Supreme Court for MAGA candidate Brad Schimel, only to watch Susan Crawford clean Schimel’s clock.

From his first presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016, “Lock her up!” has been Donald Trump’s battle cry. Restoring the greatness of a white, male-dominated America apparently requires menacing displays of dominance over women in positions of authority. Who can forget Trump acting like a stalker, invading Clinton’s personal space and looming behind her during a 2016 debate?

On Friday, a few weeks after MAGA lost its bid to disempower the progressive female majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Trump administration sent federal agents to arrest Hannah Dugan at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Trump’s attorney general and the man he chose to lead the FBI gleefully posted pictures of Dugan’s “perp walk” in handcuffs, crowing about this unprecedented assault on the dignity and authority of a judge and the sovereignty of local courts.

On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Dugan. “In order to uphold the public’s confidence in the courts of this state during the pendency of the criminal proceeding against Judge Dugan, we conclude, on our own motion, that it is in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties,” the state’s highest court said in a two-page letter ordering Judge Dugan “temporarily prohibited from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge.”

It’s a perplexing decision. It didn’t arise from any complaint; the Court acted on its own. And Dugan had already been relieved of her duties while she focuses on her defense by the chief judge in Milwaukee, who assigned her calendar to other judges to cover.

Worse, the suspension gives the impression that the federal charges against Dugan are indeed serious. But that impression is not supported by the only evidence the government has produced.

The justification for Dugan’s arrest, laid out in a federal criminal complaint, is that she impeded federal law enforcement agents when she objected to ICE disrupting her court’s proceedings and ushered the man they came to arrest out a side door. The defendant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was appearing before Dugan on a misdemeanor battery charge unrelated to his immigration status, exited into the public hallway where the agents were waiting for him. Then they followed him outside and made their arrest — unimpeded.

Fox News claimed Dugan concealed Flores-Ruiz in a jury room. But that assertion is contradicted by the sworn testimony in the government’s own criminal complaint. 

The complaint features breathlessly sexist descriptions of Dugan appearing “visibly angry” and “walking quickly,” as if that were evidence of wrongdoing. But any actual wrongdoing is hard to pinpoint.

“Whatever you think of the actual conduct the complaint alleges,” says Dean Strang, a law professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and a long-time Wisconsin criminal defense lawyer, “there is a real question about whether there’s even arguably any federal crime here.” 

The government’s behavior, meanwhile, is “extraordinarily atypical,” for a nonviolent, nondrug charge involving someone who is not a flight risk, says Strang.

The handcuffs, the public arrest at Dugan’s workplace, the media circus — none of it was normal, or justified. Then Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel began posting pictures of Dugan in handcuffs on social media to brag about it.

“So what is it they are trying to do?” asks Strang. His conclusion: “Humiliate and terrify, not just her but every other judge in the country.”

The bigger issue here, beyond an unprecedented, public display of dominance and intimidation by the Trump administration, is that, in turning federal law enforcement into an arm of his personal, vengeance-themed reality show, Trump is running roughshod over the constitutional principle of federalism, which respects the sovereignty of the states, the integrity of the courts and public safety. Scaring defendants, witnesses and victims away from making court appearances makes it harder to administer justice and makes all of us less safe.

But you’d never know that to listen to Republican state officials, who are championing federal agents barging into courts, schools and churches, forgetting everything they ever said about local control and states’ rights. On Tuesday, Assembly Republicans led by Speaker Robin Vos sent a letter to Gov. Tony Evers, declaring “our caucus believes it is imperative that our laws reflect the need for local law enforcement to comply with these efforts.”

Republicans accuse Evers of issuing guidance to state officials that impedes federal ICE raids.

 “Unfortunately, recent events in Milwaukee have underscored the importance for our state to legislate and enforce compliance with federal immigration law,” their letter declares, citing Dugan’s arrest.

The Republicans demand that Evers rescind guidance telling state agencies that they need not answer questions, hand over files, or allow ICE to enter non-public areas without a warrant.

Capitulating to an administration that has admitted to deporting U.S. citizens and defied court orders to effect the return of a man it admits was mistakenly sent to a Salvadoran prison is a terrible idea. Big law firms that agreed to drop clients and offer free legal work to appease the Trump administration have eroded trust in the law. Authoritarian undermining of our legal system is a grave danger.

The least the most timid among us can do is insist that the federal government follow the law before caving in. That’s what Dugan did, when she asked if the agents who came to her courtroom to arrest Flores-Ruiz had a judicial warrant. They did not. Nor do they have proof that Dugan herself broke any laws.

The last thing we need right now is more capitulation to MAGA bullying. Stand strong. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE