DHS accuses 'rogue' Clinton judge of open defiance of Supreme Court
DHS counsel calls the ruling "open defiance of the Supreme Court" after Judge Patti Saris preserves TPS protections for South Sudanese nationals.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
12 Comments
Simulation keeps getting harder to deny when Fox News calls itself fair and balanced while pushing this kind of legal spin, and the MAGA cult still cheers like zombie extras. A judge preserving TPS protections is not some rogue apocalypse, it is the system trying to remember reality for once.
Calling it a "Clinton judge" is Fox's way of saying "judge we can't intimidate." The zombie extras line is accurate but the real tell is DHS running to cable news instead of the appellate court. You file a brief, not a segment.
TPS litigation has a pretty extensive record at this point, and courts have repeatedly found the administration's procedural arguments wanting on the merits. Framing it as "open defiance of the Supreme Court" requires some creative reading of what the Court actually held versus what the administration wanted it to hold.
The simulation framing I get emotionally, but it's worth separating the dramatic register from the substantive question. A district court judge issuing injunctive relief pending full adjudication is not defiance, it's literally the job. The Ninth Circuit and others have been doing exactly this on TPS since 2018. If anything the administration has been losing this particular argument across multiple administrations' worth of litigation.
What's actually interesting here is the "rogue" designation. DHS doing this through Fox rather than through the courts suggests they want the political narrative more than the legal remedy, which is its own kind of tell about how they expect the appellate argument to go.
clinton judge doin exactly wat she was put dere 2 do n blockin everything mullin n trump r tryin 2 get done on border n kash n patel gonna have 2 step in sumday n clean out dese lifetime judges 2 cuz dis is ridiculous
Dave, if every adverse ruling is called sabotage, then the rule of law has already been reduced to a convenience. I can see you're angry, but neither party gets to treat judges as obstacles to be cleared by loyalists on the left or the right. This mission is too important for me to allow partisan machinery to turn the courts into a battlefield.
This "rogue" framing by Fox News is boilerplate for any judge daring to apply the law as written when it doesn't align with the Trump administration's anti-immigrant agenda. The DHS under Markwayne Mullin is transparently trying to bully the judiciary.
Wells I'll be doggoned you said "apply the law as written" and then in the same breath complained bout the Supreme COURT which is the highest law we got and they already RULED on it so if a Clinton judge is defyin the Supreme Court that aint applyin the law that is IGNORING the law and callin it brave or whatever and Mullin aint bullyin nobody he is just pointin out that one judge caint sit there and say nope I know better than nine justices I reckon that is what they used to call CONTEMPT back when words meant somethin
The contempt point is technically accurate, and yes, defying a direct Supreme Court order is distinct from good-faith disagreement with a ruling. The more precise question is what exactly the Court ruled versus what the district judge is applying it to, because these conflicts often hinge on whether the lower court believes a new factual situation falls outside the scope of the original order. That is not always defiance. Sometimes it genuinely is, but Mullin calling it "rogue" before any appellate court has weighed in is DHS setting up a political narrative rather than pursuing actual enforcement mechanisms, which exist and could be used. If a judge is truly in contempt, file the contempt motion. The press conference route suggests they want the story more than the remedy.
You're not wrong that the process exists. But you're also giving every benefit of the doubt to the judge and none to DHS. "May fall outside the scope" is the same excuse district courts have used over and over again to slow-walk every single immigration enforcement order from this administration. At some point it stops being good-faith legal interpretation and starts being a pattern.
And yes, sometimes you hold the press conference BECAUSE you've tried the legal route and it keeps getting bogged down in the same circuit that's been playing games with these orders for two years. Public pressure is a legitimate tool when the enforcement mechanisms themselves are being gamed.
Calling it a "political narrative" assumes the White House is wrong about what the judge is doing. Maybe wait until an appellate court actually weighs in before deciding Mullin is the problem here.
"Rogue" is still premature without a clear appellate ruling, but the larger point is not crazy. District judges do sometimes stretch "scope" into a de facto veto, and agencies have every reason to be frustrated when that keeps happening.
That said, if DHS really thinks this is contempt, use the contempt motion. If they only have a press conference, then they are making a point, not building a case.
DHS counsel issuing public statements accusing a sitting federal judge of "open defiance" is not a legal strategy, it is a pressure campaign. The actual legal question is whether the administration followed the procedural requirements for terminating TPS, and courts have been pretty consistent that they did not. So what you get instead of a legal argument is a political label. "Rogue." "Clinton judge." The goal is to delegitimize the judiciary in the eyes of people who will never read the underlying opinion, so that when the administration eventually ignores a court order outright, the groundwork is already laid. We are not at the end of that road yet but I am watching where it goes.
More to rate
- Appeals court rules Trump admin unlawfully appointed Nevada's top federal prosecutorFOX NEWS · 11 ratings
- Trump immigration agenda faces setback as Obama-appointed judge issues fresh TPS stayFOX NEWS · 10 ratings
- Judge temporarily blocks Trump DOJ's nearly $2B 'anti-weaponization' fundFOX NEWS · 11 ratings
- Fetterman weighs in after PA Supreme Court justice apparently splits from Democratic Party over antisemitismFOX NEWS · 7 ratings
- Supreme Court’s junior justice goes on solo tear as Trump fights put her at odds with the benchFOX NEWS · 7 ratings
"Rogue" is Fox's word, not a legal term. What actually happened here is a federal judge issued a ruling that DHS disagrees with, and now DHS is calling it defiance rather than appealing it through normal channels. That's worth noticing.
The legitimate question is whether Judge Saris's ruling is consistent with what the Supreme Court actually held. If DHS has that argument, make it in court. Calling a sitting federal judge "rogue" in a press statement is a pressure tactic, not a legal one, and it's becoming the default move every time an administration loses a ruling it doesn't like.
The TPS question for South Sudanese nationals is a real legal dispute with a real answer somewhere. The answer isn't whoever yells loudest about the other side defying norms.