Law firm urges appeals court to reject Trump on tariffs
Share this @internewscast.com

President Donald Trump speaks during a lunch with African leaders in the State Dining Room of the White House, Wednesday, July 9, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Evan Vucci).

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has prevented the Trump administration from immediately deporting immigrants who had previously been allowed entry into the U.S. – severely criticizing the federal government over its deportation strategies.

Through several policy directives, U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought to effectively end “parole” – a certain type of release – for immigrants and hasten their deportation or removal.

In March, a group of immigrant-rights organizations filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over these policies, requesting an injunction. By June, the plaintiffs had adjusted their legal approach by asking the court to pause the agency’s deportation actions.

Now, in an 84-page memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb, appointed by Joe Biden, has approved the stay, halting the implementation of these three policy directives.

“This Court will GRANT the requested stay,” the opinion states. “The challenged agency actions exceed DHS”s statutory authority and are arbitrary and capricious. And Plaintiffs’ members and others in their position face imminent, irreparable injury from those actions that outweighs any harm to the Government or the public from pressing pause. Accordingly, the challenged agency actions will be stayed, until the conclusion of this litigation, as to all noncitizens who have been, at any point in time, paroled into the United States at a port of entry.”

The government argued the plaintiffs had improperly challenged the policy directives by using the wrong statute to push for an effective injunction and because the actions had already gone into effect.

Cobb rejected those claims.

The court explained that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute governing the behavior of departments and agencies, expressly authorizes courts to issue such stays against unlawful agency actions. Further, the court said, various prior court decisions have found that stays under the APA are not “equivalent to injunctions.” As for the timing of the challenge, the judge noted the text of the APA itself expressly allows courts to “preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings.”

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice further alleged the plaintiffs conceded that a separate suite of unchallenged regulations – rules issued by agency bureaucrats without congressional input – “provide a legal basis for DHS to apply expedited removal to paroled.”

Here, Cobb was thoroughly unconvinced.

“Narrowly, this is a straightforward case of statutory interpretation and agency rationality,” the opinion reads. “Neither the applicable statutes nor principles of reasoned decision-making authorizes the challenged agency actions.”

The judge then described the dispute in terms of real world impact:

More broadly, this case presents a question of fair play. Plaintiffs’ members, and hundreds of thousands of others like them, fled oppressive regimes and perilous conditions in their home countries. They arrived for inspection at the United States border pursuant to procedures created and advocated by the U.S. Government. They were paroled into this country under those procedures and given the chance to prove their claims for asylum or other relief authorized by our laws. In a world of bad options, they played by the rules. Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.

“Plaintiffs’ declarations are replete with uncontested evidence that their members and other parolees have (a) been detained pursuant to explicit or apparent expedited removal proceedings, when they were previously undergoing [removal] proceedings without being detained, (b) often been detained in far-flung locations away from their families and attorneys, (c) faced poor conditions in detention more commonly associated with expedited removal facilities than others, and (d) suffered mental and physical health challenges as a result of their detention,” the court explains – crediting the plaintiffs’ narratives.

To hear Cobb tell it, the combined weight of the factual allegations – which she found to be largely uncontested – and the legal landscape – which she found to be “clearly” in the plaintiffs’ favor – suggest the immigration agencies’ actions “are both ultra vires and arbitrary and capricious.” Or, in other words, beyond the agencies’ power and in violation of a specific section of the APA.

The judge frames the issue before the court as a long question.

“This case’s underlying question, then, asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules,” the opinion goes on. “Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that—as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges—may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?”

Cobb suggests the answer in the case is not entirely unlike obvious – at least for now.

Share this @internewscast.com
You May Also Like

Judge Rejects Trump’s Request to Halt Case Due to Shutdown

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the Oval Office at the…

Tony Mokbel Exonerated from Certain Drug Charges; New Trials Await on Remaining Accusations

Three appeal judges have delivered a split decision in underworld figure Tony…

Convicted Mushroom Poisoning Suspect Plans to Appeal Verdict

Mushroom murderer Erin Patterson will appeal her convictions but she has been…

City Representative Shocked by Man with a Shotgun: Police Report

Inset: Joey Alexander (KRON/YouTube). Background: The Main Branch of the San Francisco…

Police Report: Couple Accused of Abusing and Starving 4-Year-Old Who Passed Away

Background: The courthouse in Palmer County, Alaska (Google Maps). Insets (left to…

Woman Sentenced for Torturing and Killing Boyfriend

Left: Gabrielle A. Stine (McLean County Jail). Right: Jamere Bew (Minor-Morris Funeral…

Ex-Florida Deputy Convicted for Girlfriend’s Shooting

A former Florida deputy sheriff was found guilty Wednesday of killing his…

D4VD Remains Quiet Amid Intensified Investigation into Celeste’s Murder

On the evening when the decomposed body of Celeste Rivas Hernandez was…

QuikTrip Dispute Over Right-of-Way Escalates to Tragedy, Police Report

Inset from left to right: Alfred Jackson Jr. and Olivia Guster (Denton…

Parents Accused of Fatally Abusing 10-Year-Old Child: Police Report

Inset left to right: Jonathan Miranda and Christina Miranda (Bexar County Jail).…

Driver Who Intentionally Hit and Killed Two Kangaroos Avoids Jail Time

A man who deliberately swerved to kill two kangaroos with his ute…

Man Reveals Location Where He and Army Friend Disposed of Dismembered Roommate: Police Report

Background: Rainor Joiner is seen in footage allegedly showing New Mexico officers…