Category: Immigration

Federal judges in Minnesota coordinated their handling of habeas petitions during Operation Metro Surge, raising ethical concerns about their collaboration amid a surge in immigration cases.

Federal judges in Minnesota faced an unprecedented influx of habeas petitions challenging the detention of immigrants during President Donald Trump’s Operation Metro Surge. Behind the scenes, these judges were not solely working independently; they engaged in regular consultations through email threads and developed tools to efficiently address recurring legal questions.

A recent report by the New York Times revealed that this coordination among Minnesota’s federal judges included regular meetings, ongoing email discussions, and an informal spreadsheet created by court clerks. This spreadsheet indicated which judges were best suited to address specific legal inquiries. Additionally, some judges created templates to expedite the issuance of orders when similar detention disputes arose in court.

The revelations have sparked debate over whether the judges were colluding on cases related to the same immigration policies enacted by the Trump administration or simply sharing expertise to manage an extraordinary caseload. Robert Luther III, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, expressed his concerns, stating, “The idea of a running email chain involving a variety of cases — it strikes me as very weird and frankly unprecedented.” While he acknowledged that judges often consult with colleagues on procedural matters, he emphasized that each judge is ultimately responsible for independently deciding their assigned cases, making this level of coordination noteworthy.

The disclosures have also drawn criticism from the Trump administration. James Percival, General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accused the former chief judge of “essentially conspiring with his judicial colleagues” to undermine federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department (DOJ) raised concerns about the decision of sitting judges to provide extensive on-the-record interviews regarding their experiences with the administration’s immigration operation.

Seven judges from the district spoke to the Times for the report, including former Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, who participated in a 90-minute interview. Schiltz refrained from discussing ongoing cases but described the situation in Minnesota’s federal court as having “created a grave threat to the rule of law.” A spokesperson for the DOJ remarked, “It is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration’s policies rather than ruling from the bench.” They further suggested that judges who have made public comments on pending matters should consider recusal in future cases.

Chief Judge Eric Tostrud, who was also interviewed, defended the judges’ actions, asserting that each member of the bench independently evaluated the merits of every petition assigned to them. He pointed to a significant surge in litigation, noting that Minnesota’s federal court received 1,427 habeas petitions through August of this year, a stark increase from just 12 in all of 2024. Tostrud acknowledged that many of these cases involved similar or identical legal questions, which necessitated communication among judges.

“The bottom line is that each of us made an independent decision with respect to the merits of each and every petition we were assigned,” Tostrud stated. He emphasized that while some judges reached the same conclusions on certain legal questions, they also arrived at different outcomes on others. This communication, he argued, allowed them to resolve cases efficiently and thoughtfully, regardless of whether individual petitions were granted.

However, the specifics of what the judges were sharing behind the scenes remain unclear. Tostrud declined to disclose the contents of the court’s internal working materials, stating that documents created by judges and court staff “are not public.”

The nature of the coordination has raised questions about judicial ethics. Luther noted that while administrative templates are common in federal courts, there is a significant distinction between those and templates that pertain to the substance of a case. “Templates that deal with administrative matters strike me as entirely appropriate and commonplace in federal courts,” he said. “Templates for substantive matters — that seems like something altogether different.”

This coordination occurred amid a broader conflict between Minnesota’s federal judges and the Trump administration regarding Operation Metro Surge. Immigration litigation inundated the district during this time. In the first three months of 2026, the federal court in Minnesota received 1,116 habeas petitions, a dramatic increase from just two during the same period the previous year. Court staff reportedly worked 16-hour days, seven days a week, to manage the influx of cases.

Patrick Schiltz, who served as chief judge during Operation Metro Surge before transitioning to senior status this summer, became a vocal critic of the administration’s handling of the operation. In a January 28 order, Schiltz accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of violating nearly 100 court orders in that month alone, asserting that “ICE is not a law unto itself.”

The cases cited in Schiltz’s January list of alleged violations have largely concluded, with the Times reporting that the administration ultimately corrected many of the issues flagged by the court. The DOJ’s review indicated that in the “large majority” of these cases, detainees were released on time, and no violations occurred. In most of the remaining cases, the department stated it complied with court orders despite missing additional deadlines.

Federal judicial ethics rules generally prohibit judges from publicly commenting on the merits of pending or impending cases. However, they are permitted to explain court procedures and engage in broader discussions about the law and the legal system. The DOJ argued that judges who publicly commented on pending matters should consider recusal. Nonetheless, Schiltz maintained that he did not discuss ongoing cases, while Judge Nancy Brasel, a Trump appointee who also participated in the interviews, defended the judges’ right to speak publicly about judicial independence. “We are allowed to speak out about judicial independence,” Brasel stated. “And so we should, in order to keep it.”

In contrast, Luther expressed a different perspective on the judges’ decision to engage with the media. “Judges should be speaking through their judicial orders, not through their surrogates at The New York Times,” he remarked.

The ongoing discourse surrounding the coordination among Minnesota’s federal judges raises significant questions about judicial ethics and the balance between sharing expertise and maintaining independence in the face of a substantial caseload.

According to the New York Times, the situation continues to evolve as scrutiny of the judges’ actions persists.

President Donald Trump’s administration has launched a series of MAGA-themed arcade games, drawing both interest and criticism for their portrayal of immigration and border security issues.

The Trump administration has introduced a new online arcade featuring five MAGA-themed games that creatively incorporate elements of President Donald Trump’s political agenda. This initiative, unveiled on September 3, aims to engage a wider audience by transforming traditional political messaging into interactive gameplay.

Among the games, “Rio Run” and “Build the Wall” have garnered significant attention for their direct connections to Trump’s immigration policies. “Rio Run,” inspired by the classic Snake format, allows players to navigate the Rio Grande while collecting individuals attempting to cross the border. Meanwhile, “Build the Wall” adopts a Tetris-like approach, challenging players to construct a border barrier using falling blocks.

The White House’s decision to launch these games appears to be a strategic move to communicate Trump’s policies in a more engaging manner. Rather than relying solely on speeches and social media posts, the administration has packaged several key issues into short, interactive experiences accessible through the White House website.

In a statement, the White House emphasized its goal of presenting the administration’s achievements in a format that resonates with Americans. “This administration is laser focused on ways to innovate and tell the story of the President’s many accomplishments in a way that resonates with every American,” the statement read. It further claimed that the initiative contrasts a culture of fun and winning with what it described as the “dark socialist vision” of the Democrats.

The launch video for the arcade cleverly mimics the visual style of major gaming companies, even transforming the Sega logo into “MAGA,” a nod to Trump’s campaign slogan. The White House promoted the games on social media with messages like, “CAN’T STOP WINNING. Build the wall. Deport. Fill a Trump Account.”

However, the arcade has faced backlash, particularly for its portrayal of immigration issues. Critics argue that games like “Rio Run” trivialize serious matters by reducing complex human experiences to mere scoring systems. Amerika Garcia Grewal, co-director of the Frontera Federation in Eagle Pass, Texas, expressed her dismay, stating, “They’ve been playing games with people’s lives for years; now they’ve made a video game of what they’re doing.” She criticized the lack of empathy in the game’s design, emphasizing that those living in border communities are often treated with suspicion and violence.

The second game, “Build the Wall,” similarly transforms a contentious political proposal into an arcade challenge. Players are tasked with arranging blocks to create a border wall, with instructions urging them to “Protect the border from the coming horde.” This game has also drawn criticism for its insensitivity to the real-life implications of immigration policy.

In addition to the immigration-focused games, the arcade features three others that highlight different aspects of Trump’s political agenda. “Supply Line,” inspired by the classic arcade game Tapper, requires players to manage food products on a conveyor belt, rejecting those that do not meet the game’s standards, reflecting Trump’s Make America Healthy Again initiative.

“Flappy Bill,” a take on the popular Flappy Bird game, allows players to control a bald eagle navigating through obstacles in Washington, D.C., while carrying a piece of legislation. Lastly, “Trump Savings Tycoon” focuses on the administration’s child savings program, where players collect money to fill children’s so-called Trump Accounts, which include a $1,000 deposit for eligible children born during Trump’s second term.

The criticism surrounding the arcade centers on the ethical implications of turning immigration enforcement into a form of entertainment. Rights advocates argue that such games oversimplify the complexities of human experiences and ignore the realities faced by migrants and border communities. As the Trump administration continues to pursue a stringent immigration enforcement agenda, the timing of this arcade launch has raised eyebrows.

While the White House maintains that the initiative is a creative way to communicate its policies, critics contend that it blurs the line between political messaging and entertainment. The arcade exemplifies a broader trend of unconventional digital communication employed by Trump’s administration, which has often utilized social media, memes, and visual stunts to promote its policies.

As the arcade continues to attract attention, it remains to be seen whether it will serve as a lasting tool for political communication or simply another internet stunt from the White House. Regardless, its launch has sparked a significant debate over the appropriateness of using entertainment to address serious political issues involving real people and contentious government policies.

According to AFP, the arcade’s launch has ignited discussions about the intersection of politics and entertainment in contemporary discourse.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling permits the Trump administration to block asylum seekers at the southern border, raising significant concerns about the future of asylum rights in the United States.

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump administration may turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border, asserting that this action does not violate federal immigration law. The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, examined a now-defunct policy that allowed immigration officers at official border crossings to physically and indefinitely prevent individuals seeking safety from entering the U.S., undermining the government’s legal obligation to inspect and process asylum requests. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the decision, stating it “blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution,” despite the established asylum system created by Congress.

In response to the ruling, immigrant rights advocates are convening for a virtual media briefing at 3:00 PM ET/12:00 PM PT to discuss its implications.

Erika Pinheiro, Executive Director of Al Otro Lado, expressed her dismay, stating, “We believe that today’s ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress, which enshrined the rights and obligations of the Refugee Convention into U.S. federal law over 40 years ago.” She emphasized that the U.S. has historically allowed individuals and families fleeing persecution, torture, and death to seek protection at its borders. Pinheiro warned that this decision undermines the U.S.’s position as a global leader in refugee rights and could embolden other nations to unlawfully prevent refugees from crossing borders in search of safety. “In a world of increasing conflict and climate disaster, this hardening of borders to keep out the most vulnerable is sure to result in many more lives lost,” she added.

The turnback policy, often referred to as “metering” by government officials, diverged from both international and federal asylum law. It denied thousands the right to seek asylum, forcing them to endure perilous conditions in Mexico or return to the dangers they fled.

In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a binational organization providing legal and humanitarian assistance to migrants, along with a group of asylum seekers, filed a class action lawsuit challenging the policy. Courts ruled the policy unlawful in both 2022 and 2024. Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration sought to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that deemed the policy illegal.

Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and an attorney for the case, stated, “As explained by Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, the Court’s decision to greenlight the government’s turnback policy is an affront to congressional authority over immigration matters with devastating humanitarian consequences.” She urged Congress to enact legislation to correct what she termed the Court’s error and to ensure that asylum seekers are not forced back into violent and life-threatening situations.

This ruling effectively overturns immigration laws that have required government officials to inspect all individuals presenting themselves at designated ports of entry for over a century. Since Congress incorporated asylum into U.S. law more than 45 years ago, the port inspection requirement has been a safeguard against sending vulnerable individuals back to danger without the chance to seek protection.

Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), remarked, “This ruling should sound the alarm for anyone who cares about human rights and the rule of law.” She noted that the majority opinion in Al Otro Lado suggests that the president may unilaterally override established law and infringe upon individuals’ legal rights if it aligns with political interests. Crow emphasized that the turnback policy did not merely delay entry for asylum seekers; for many, it resulted in a complete denial of entry, which in some instances became a death sentence. “While this decision is a significant blow, our movement will keep fighting to restore asylum as a lifeline for people seeking refuge,” she asserted.

Angelo Guisado, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, expressed his concern for the thousands of desperate asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border, stating, “My heart is with the thousands of desperate and endangered asylum seekers across the U.S.-Mexico border whose rights the U.S. has erased with the stroke of a pen.”

Sarah Rich, Senior Attorney at Democracy Forward, highlighted the broader implications of the ruling, stating, “On the 250th anniversary year of the United States, our federal executive branch is abandoning its obligations to asylum seekers fleeing perilous circumstances in fear for their lives.” She called the Supreme Court’s decision disappointing and urged Americans to demand that the government protect the families the Court has abandoned. “Congress should act to protect not only the lives of asylum seekers but also the best of American values,” Rich added.

Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, criticized the ruling, stating, “Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system; it only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families.” She emphasized the need for an asylum system that is fair, efficient, accountable, and treats individuals with dignity. “Unfortunately, today’s decision validates an approach that treats people seeking safety as a problem to shut out instead of creating an orderly system that actually works,” Cassler concluded.

For more information about the case, visit the campaign website, No Turning Back.

Al Otro Lado provides holistic legal and humanitarian support to refugees, deportees, and other migrants in the U.S. and Tijuana through a multidisciplinary, client-centered, harm reduction-based practice. They engage in individual representation, human rights monitoring, medical-legal partnerships, and impact litigation to protect the rights of immigrants and those seeking asylum.

The American Immigration Council aims to strengthen America by shaping perceptions and actions toward immigrants and immigration, advocating for a fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection. The Council employs coordinated approaches to advance change through litigation, research, legislative advocacy, and communications.

The Center for Constitutional Rights collaborates with threatened communities to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center has challenged oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach.

The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies defends the human rights of refugees seeking asylum in the United States, utilizing strategic focus and legal expertise to champion challenging cases, fight for due process, and promote policies that ensure safety and justice for refugees.

The Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement.

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is a non-partisan public interest organization within Georgetown Law, engaging in litigation, policy, and public education to defend constitutional rights and protect democratic processes.

According to American Immigration Council, the implications of this ruling could reshape the landscape of asylum rights in the United States.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling permits the Trump administration to block asylum seekers at the southern border, raising concerns about the implications for U.S. immigration law and humanitarian obligations.

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump administration is permitted to turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border, asserting that this action does not violate federal immigration law. The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, focused on a now-defunct policy that allowed immigration officers at official border crossings to physically and indefinitely prevent individuals seeking safety from entering the United States. This policy was seen as a violation of the government’s legal obligation to inspect and process asylum requests.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the decision, stating that it “blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution,” despite the comprehensive asylum system established by Congress.

In response to the ruling, immigrant rights advocates are scheduled to gather for a virtual media briefing at 3:00 PM ET/12:00 PM PT to discuss its implications.

Erika Pinheiro, Executive Director of Al Otro Lado, expressed concern that the ruling contravenes international law and undermines the intent of Congress, which has upheld the rights and obligations of the Refugee Convention in U.S. federal law for over 40 years. “For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families fleeing persecution, torture, and death to seek protection at its borders,” she stated. “This decision has destroyed the United States’ position as a global leader in promoting the rights of refugees and threatens to serve as a dangerous justification for other countries that unlawfully prevent refugees from crossing borders in search of safety.”

The policy, referred to as “metering” by government officials, diverged from both international and federal asylum law. It effectively denied thousands the right to seek asylum, forcing many to endure hazardous conditions in Mexico or return to the dangers they had fled.

In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a binational organization providing legal and humanitarian assistance to migrants, along with a group of asylum seekers, filed a class action lawsuit challenging the policy. Courts ruled against the policy in both 2022 and 2024. Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration sought to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that deemed the policy unlawful.

Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case, remarked, “The Court’s decision to greenlight the government’s turnback policy is an affront to congressional authority over immigration matters with devastating humanitarian consequences.” She emphasized that it is now up to Congress to enact legislation that corrects the Court’s ruling and ensures that asylum seekers are not forced back into violent and life-threatening situations.

The ruling effectively overturns immigration laws that have mandated government officials to inspect all individuals presenting themselves at designated ports of entry for over a century. Since Congress incorporated asylum into U.S. law more than 45 years ago, the port inspection requirement has been crucial in preventing the government from sending vulnerable individuals back to danger without allowing them to seek protection.

Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), stated, “This ruling should sound the alarm for anyone who cares about human rights and the rule of law.” She added that the majority opinion suggests the president may unilaterally override decades of established law and infringe on individuals’ legal rights if it aligns with a political agenda. “For far too many asylum seekers, the policy denied entry entirely. In some cases, that became a death sentence.”

Angelo Guisado, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, shared his dismay, stating, “My heart is with the thousands of desperate and endangered asylum seekers across the U.S.-Mexico border whose rights the U.S. has erased with the stroke of a pen.”

Sarah Rich, Senior Attorney at Democracy Forward, criticized the decision, noting that it abandons the U.S. obligations to asylum seekers fleeing perilous circumstances. “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that will put even more people and families in harm’s way,” she said. Rich urged Americans to demand that the government protect the families affected by the Court’s ruling.

Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, emphasized that blocking individuals from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will not resolve the broken immigration system. “It only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families,” she said. Cassler called for an asylum system that is fair, efficient, accountable, and treats individuals with dignity.

For more information about the case, visit the campaign website, No Turning Back.

Al Otro Lado provides comprehensive legal and humanitarian support to refugees, deportees, and other migrants in the U.S. and Tijuana through a multidisciplinary, client-centered approach. They engage in individual representation, human rights monitoring, medical-legal partnerships, and impact litigation to protect the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers.

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping public perception and policy regarding immigrants and immigration, advocating for a fair and just immigration system that welcomes those in need of protection. The Council employs coordinated approaches to advance change, including litigation, research, legislative advocacy, and communications.

The Center for Constitutional Rights fights for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications, addressing issues such as structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach since 1966.

The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies defends the human rights of refugees seeking asylum in the United States, focusing on challenging cases, fighting for due process, and promoting policies that ensure safety and justice for refugees.

The Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that promotes democracy and social progress through litigation, policy advocacy, public education, and regulatory engagement.

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is a non-partisan, public interest organization within Georgetown Law that engages in litigation, policy, and public education to defend constitutional rights and protect democratic processes.

This article is based on information from the American Immigration Council.