Courts Push Back on Trump Policies as Immigration and Civil Rights Tensions Mount
As the administration faces growing legal and political challenges, new controversies around immigration and civil rights deepen tensions.
With Trump’s first 100 days fast approaching, his second term continues to spark growing backlash over immigration policy, court battles, and civil rights rollbacks. Over the weekend, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported three U.S. citizen children from two different families. The children—ages 2, 4, and 7—were sent to Honduras after being detained in ICE facilities in Louisiana. The deportations raised further alarm after reports that the 4-year-old, who has stage 4 cancer, was deported without access to medication or contact with their doctors.
Meanwhile, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested a Milwaukee circuit judge for allegedly interfering in the arrest of an undocumented immigrant, intensifying tensions as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) builds a master database to track immigration enforcement targets.
In a series of court rulings, the Supreme Court signaled support for establishing a parental opt-out right over LGBTQ-themed books in public schools. Separately, three federal judges blocked Trump administration efforts to penalize schools for implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In a follow-up to previous reporting by The Introspective, another federal judge blocked an executive order that would have required proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.
Further scrutiny came when Trump signed an executive order to repeal “disparate impact” liability—a core protection under the Civil Rights Act of 1964—potentially dismantling safeguards against policies that disproportionately harm certain demographic groups.
Immigration Escalation and Public Backlash
Three U.S. citizen children from two different families were deported alongside their mothers by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Friday, sparking national outrage. One of the deported children, a 4-year-old with stage 4 cancer, was sent to Honduras without access to medication or the ability to contact their doctors, raising serious concerns about due process violations as anti-immigrant sentiment continues to escalate during Trump’s second term.
"I don’t know how much more of a blatant or clear constitutional violation there can be than deporting U.S. citizens without due process," said Alanah Odoms, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Louisiana chapter, in an interview with The Washington Post.
"Especially with some of those citizens being the most vulnerable of all vulnerable—children—and not just any children, but children with medical conditions that are dire."
The two families were taken into custody earlier in the week after attending routine immigration check-ins in New Orleans. Lawyers alleged that the families were then transported to Alexandria, Louisiana—three hours away—before being deported to Honduras.
Hours after the deportation of the 2-year-old, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued an emergency order, calling the deportations “illegal and unconstitutional.” The child’s father had previously filed an emergency petition to halt the deportation.
“The government contends that this is all OK because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her,” wrote Doughty, a Trump appointee.
“But the court doesn’t know that.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), however, claimed it was aware of the children’s citizenship status, arguing that the undocumented mothers chose to take their U.S. citizen children with them to Honduras.
“This parent made the decision to take the child with them to Honduras. It is common that parents want to be removed with their children,” said Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
“Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children or ICE will place the children with someone the parent designates. In this case, the parent stated they wanted to be removed with the children.”
On the same day, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, alleging she obstructed the arrest of an undocumented immigrant by escorting the individual and his attorney through a private jury door to avoid federal agents.
“We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject—an illegal alien—to evade arrest,” wrote FBI Director Kash Patel on X.
“Thankfully, our agents chased down the perp on foot and he’s been in custody since, but the judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public.”
In an interview with Fox News, Attorney General Pam Bondi criticized Dugan’s actions.
“Shame on her,” Bondi said.
“I think some of these judges believe they are beyond and above the law, and they are not. We’re sending a very strong message today: if you are harboring a fugitive, we don’t care who you are.”
Assistant Secretary McLaughlin echoed Bondi’s sentiments in a press release, calling Dugan’s actions "shocking and shameful."
“Since President Trump was inaugurated, activist judges have tried to obstruct President Trump and the American people’s mandate to make America safe and secure our homeland,” McLaughlin said.
Dugan was later released on bond, with another court hearing scheduled for May 15.
Meanwhile, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is reportedly building a master database aimed at enhancing immigration enforcement and deportations by utilizing data from across the federal government.
"If they are designing a deportation machine, they will be able to do that," said a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee familiar with the plans, according to a report by CNN.
The escalation in immigration enforcement comes as public support for Trump's immigration policies has declined. An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that 46% of Americans now approve of Trump’s immigration policies, down from 50% in February. Separate polling shows Trump’s overall 100-day approval rating at just 39%, the lowest for any president at this stage in 80 years.
Federal Judges and the Supreme Court
Following a previous Introspective report that highlighted threats to revoke federal funding from schools that don’t dismantle programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), three federal judges in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Washington, D.C., ruled Thursday that the Trump administration had overstepped.
District Judge Landya B. McCafferty in New Hampshire emphasized the importance of academic freedom in her opinion.
“In this case, the court reviews action by the executive branch that threatens to erode these foundational principles,” McCafferty wrote.
In Maryland, District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher issued a temporary stay, preventing Trump officials from enforcing their threat against schools. McCafferty similarly blocked enforcement in any school employing a teacher from one of the groups involved in the New Hampshire lawsuit.
“This Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing [policies] in the manner the law requires,” Gallagher wrote.
The judges also criticized the Trump administration for failing to clearly define what constitutes DEI.
“Although the challenged documents place a particular emphasis on ‘certain DEI practices,’ they fail to provide an actionable definition of what constitutes ‘DEI’ or a ‘DEI’ practice,” wrote District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich in Washington, D.C.
In another development on the same day, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s executive order that required proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.
“Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections,” wrote District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
Under Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling, the independent Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is prohibited from changing federal voter registration forms to require passports or other documents to prove citizenship. The directive also restricts federal agencies from utilizing a part of the order that would require officials to verify a prospective voter’s citizenship before providing a registration form.
At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to establish a parental opt-out right for LGBTQ-themed books in public schools. This comes after Christian and Muslim parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C., argued that the county’s policy, which prohibits opt-outs, violates First Amendment protections for freedom of religion.
The Court is expected to make a decision by the end of June.
Civil Rights in Jeopardy
President Trump signed an executive order aimed at repealing “disparate impact” liability—a core protection under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Disparate impact is meant to prevent policies and procedures that disproportionately affect a group of people. For example, while it is still illegal for an employer to refuse to hire someone based on ethnicity, under the directive, it would be legal to deny employment to individuals with felony convictions, a policy that could disproportionately impact communities. Studies show that 33% of Black men have felonies, due in part to policies like the War on Drugs.
“On a practical level, disparate-impact liability has hindered businesses from making hiring and other employment decisions based on merit and skill, their needs, or the needs of their customers because of the specter that such a process might lead to disparate outcomes, and thus disparate-impact lawsuits,” the executive order reads.
“Because of disparate-impact liability, employers cannot act in the best interests of the job applicant, the employer, and the American public.”
Despite the fact that disparate impact was codified in a 1971 Supreme Court ruling, many right-wing advocates have called for the law to be repealed, citing the Court’s conservative majority.
“If Mr. Trump is serious about his goal, he also needs to repudiate disparate-impact theory, which prohibits facially neutral practices that have a disproportionate impact on a protected group. In practice, it often harms the people it’s supposed to protect. And it’s unconstitutional,” wrote Andrew M. Grossman, a senior legal fellow at the Buckeye Institute, and Kristin A. Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, in the Wall Street Journal.
However, in an interview with HR Brew, ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, emphasized the Court’s historical support of the clause.
“Trump once again gets the law wrong when it comes to equal opportunity,” Moore said.
“Courts—including the Supreme Court—have consistently recognized and upheld the application of disparate impact liability in a variety of contexts. It’s a well-established tool that allows courts to stop policies and practices that unfairly and without a legitimate reason exclude people because of their race, gender, disability, or other legally protected characteristics.”