Trump Administration Suffers Double Legal Blow Within Hours
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Trump administration suffered two legal defeats within hours on Friday.
A judge in California ordered the release of a Syrian national it has been seeking to deport while a federal Rhode Island judge blocked the imposition of new conditions on domestic violence programs as part of the president's campaign against "gender ideology."
Details of both cases were shared on X by Kyle Cheney, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico.
Newsweek contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and press inquiry form respectively.
Why It Matters
With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress as well as the White House the courts have emerged as one of the main impediments to Trump administration policy.
The administration has suffered a number of prominent legal defeats including courts striking down punitive measures introduced by Trump against law firms involved in proceedings against him, blocking a bid to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protection and removing sanctions aimed at International Criminal Court employees.
Release of Salam Maklad
U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Thurston, of the Eastern District of California, on Friday instructed the release of Salam Maklad, a Syrian from the Druze religious minority who arrived in the United States in 2002 without valid entry documents and claimed asylum, according to court documents seen by Newsweek.
Maklad went on to marry a man who was granted asylum, which her legal team argued made her eligible for legal immigration status.
President Donald Trump listening to questions from reporters after speaking on economic data in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.
President Donald Trump listening to questions from reporters after speaking on economic data in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Win McNamee/GETTY
On July 9, Maklad was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers after arriving for what she believed was a routine "check-in" meeting and subsequently placed in "expedited removal proceedings" seeking to deport her from the U.S.
Thurston noted that Maklad had no criminal history and wasn't considered a flight risk, and concluded that "the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in favor of Ms. Maklad." Consequently she ordered her release from custody and said authorities are blocked from rearresting her "absent compliance with constitutional protections, which
include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances
necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing."
Domestic Violence Funding
Friday also saw Senior District Judge William Smith of Rhode Island rule the Trump administration couldn't impose fresh conditions on funds granted by the Violence Against Women Act due to the president's Executive Order 14168 titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."
This funding is distributed by the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women.
Trump's order stated that sex is a person's "immutable biological classification as male or female," and that the federal government should "prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce the rights and freedoms" associated with this position.
The Office on Violence Against Women updated its policy on what constitutes "out of scope activities," and therefore should not be funded by its grants, after this order was issued in "approximately May 2025," according to the court filing.
This added spending on "inculcating or promoting gender ideology as defined
in Executive Order 14168" to the prohibited list.
The case was brought by a coalition of 17 nonprofit groups which argued adhering to President Trump's position on gender was impeding their ability to assist victims of domestic violence.
Judge Smith backed the coalition's position concluding that the fresh requirements imposed by the Trump administration "could result in the disruption" of services for victims of domestic and sexual violence.
What People Are Saying
In the California case Judge Thurston ruled: "Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re[1]arresting or re-detaining Ms. Maklad absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing.
"At any such hearing, the Government SHALL bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Maklad poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Ms. Maklad SHALL be allowed to have her counsel present."
In his ruling Judge Smith wrote: "On the one hand, if the Court does not grant preliminary relief, then the Coalitions will face real and immediate irreparable harm from the challenged conditions, conditions which the Court has already concluded likely violate the APA.
"This could result in the disruption of important and, in some cases, life[1]saving services to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. On the other hand, if the Court grants preliminary relief, then the Office will simply have to consider grant applications and award funding as it normally does."
What's Next
It remains to be seen whether the Trump's administration will seek to appeal either of Friday's rulings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House
Meanwhile, national Democratic Party leaders are Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up There are no saints or villains in this saga. Republicans and Democrats are engaging in a bare-knuckled fight for power, and what each side condemns is Advertisement The cause of all this drama is not inherent Republican or Democratic perfidy. It is an institutional flaw: With only 435 seats, the US House is far too small — which means each congressional district is far too large. The average district now encompasses nearly 760,000 people. That is a constituency vastly greater than any member of Congress can effectively or fairly represent. And because congressional districts are so large, each one is a political prize well worth gerrymandering. When each district must corral so many people, a single line on the map has an outsize political impact. Under such circumstances, partisan cartography becomes irresistible — and bitter, recurring fights like the one in Texas are inevitable. Happily, there is a structural remedy that would dramatically curtail the constant court fights, political retaliation, and vicious maneuvering surrounding redistricting. Congress ought to expand the size of the House from the current 435 members to 1,500. No constitutional amendment would be needed — it would require only a simple statute to restore each House district to a more manageable size, and thereby make gerrymandering far less tempting. That would be a return to what the framers of the Constitution intended. The House of Representatives was conceived as Advertisement And there it froze. Congress didn't expand the House following the 1920 census, because of a political standoff. Many members resented the A House of 435 might have been workable during the Hoover administration. It makes no sense now. If the House were expanded to 1,500 members, the average congressional district would have about 225,000 people — still larger than its counterparts in many other modern democracies, but far more manageable than today's bloated mega-districts. Granted, that would require more chairs in the House chamber and perhaps smaller offices and staffs for each member. But the payoff would be enormous: Not only would the House be more representative, it would also be less susceptible to gerrymandering. Here's why: When each congressional district contains three-quarters of a million seats, a carefully crafted border can determine the balance of thousands of votes — enough to flip a seat. That makes each boundary line a powerful political weapon. But when districts are a third or a quarter of that size, no single line carries as much weight. Shifting a few neighborhoods or towns from one district to another would affect far fewer voters, making it harder for mapmakers to engineer outcomes with surgical precision. Smaller districts mean smaller levers — reducing the scope for mischief. Advertisement And the more districts there are, the less potent those engineering tactics become. Gerrymandering works best when the map has fewer, larger pieces — which makes it easier to 'pack' opposition voters into a handful of districts, and to 'crack' the rest among multiple other districts, thinning out their numbers to ensure that they lose everywhere else. But multiply the number of districts, and that strategy loses force. The cartographer's advantage fades as the map gets more granular. When each puzzle piece covers a smaller slice of territory, the lines become less predictable and harder to weaponize. Last but definitely not least, in a 1,500-member House, voters would be likelier to know their elected representative — and to be known in return. In districts limited to 225,000 constituents, there would be room for more local voices, more diversity of all kinds, more candidates who reflect the communities they serve. Much smaller districts means much less expensive campaigns — and lower barriers to entry for challengers. It also encourages lawmakers to stay grounded in the concerns of their neighbors rather than the noise of national partisanship. Congress blundered badly when it froze the House at 435 seats. The chaos emanating from Texas is only the latest consequence of that blunder. Advertisement It doesn't have to be this way. Enlarging the House to 1,500 members would end the gerrymandering wars. Better still, it would revive the ideal of a legislature that truly speaks for the people — restoring the people's House to its constitutional roots. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
A brief history of Trump pretending not to know things
Less than a week after the Justice Department took the highly unusual step of sending Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general and Trump's former personal lawyer, to interview Maxwell for more than nine hours over two days, she was quietly moved from a federal minimum-security prison in Florida to a less-restrictive facility in Texas. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But according to Trump, that decision was news to him. Advertisement Perhaps the president really has no clue as to what's happening in his administration. But Trump's pleas of ignorance are an escape hatch he has deployed for years. Here's a brief history of notable moments in Trump's performative ignorance. The David Duke endorsement (2016): After Trump launched his first presidential campaign by excoriating Mexican immigrants and later promising to enact a Advertisement James Comey's firing (2017): Months into his first term, Trump dumped James Comey as FBI director. At the time, White House officials claimed that Trump fired Comey solely on the recommendation of deputy attorney general Hush money paid to Stormy Daniels (2018): Trump Advertisement Project 2025 (2024): At a Heritage Foundation event in 2022, Trump said the conservative group 'would lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.' Two years later, Trump Trump seems to treat ignorance — saying 'I don't know' or 'I didn't know'— as evidence of his innocence. He's testing that theory again as his self-inflicted Epstein scandal refuses to go away. But whether this tactic will allow him to dodge accountability this time, no one knows. Advertisement Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Dr. Phil's Road From Oprah to ICE Raids
My session with Dr. Phil had reached an impasse. About three hours in, seated inside the Dallas mega-mansion where he is steering his herky-jerk transition from daytime TV behemoth to MAGA-friendly newsman, the once-licensed psychologist was giving no ground on what seemed to me an obvious point. 'I don't think I'm qualified to talk about politics,' he said, steepling his fingers in contemplation. And so, he insisted, he really hadn't. This was difficult to square with recent events. In the last two years, Dr. Phil (surname: McGraw) had ended his flagship talk show and created his own news and entertainment network, trafficking daily in conservative-coded subjects — 'Dr. Phil: The Hidden Gem in Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,'' 'Dr. Phil Investigates: Are Schools Secretly Transitioning Your Child?' — in an unswerving crusade against 'the woke left.' He had spoken glowingly of President Trump as an invited guest at Mr. Trump's Madison Square Garden campaign rally, at a White House faith event and at a recent Texas flood briefing, where the president interrupted himself after spotting Dr. Phil — 'There's Dr. Phil. Look at Dr. Phil. You're looking good, Phil. This is a hell of a situation, isn't it?' — and later asked him to address the bereaved. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
