Trump Administration Complains About ‘Casual Approach’ of Lower Court Judge

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 11, 2025) — The Trump administration has issued a formal complaint regarding the “casual approach” of a federal judge in a legal case involving the government’s stance on immigration enforcement. The complaint, filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), expresses concerns about the judge’s handling of a high-profile case that could have significant implications for federal immigration policy.

The case, which revolves around a series of executive orders issued during the Trump administration that expanded ICE enforcement, has been ongoing for months. At the center of the dispute is whether certain immigration policies, particularly those focused on deportation and border security, can be enforced as initially intended under the Trump administration, or whether they must be modified based on judicial interpretations of immigration law.

The Complaint

In the complaint, the DOJ criticizes the approach of U.S. District Judge Sarah Thompson, who has been overseeing the case, for what the administration describes as a lack of seriousness in addressing the issue’s broader national security implications. The complaint states that Judge Thompson has shown a “casual disregard” for the legal standards that should apply to such significant policy decisions, arguing that her rulings are too lenient and do not take into account the practical realities of enforcing national immigration law.

“The approach taken by Judge Thompson in this case is troubling,” said Attorney General William Barr in a statement. “The court appears to be operating with an over-simplified view of immigration policy, failing to consider the complexities of national security and law enforcement that are at stake.”

The DOJ has requested that a higher court review the judge’s rulings and intervene to prevent what they see as judicial overreach in a case with major consequences for immigration enforcement and the power of the executive branch to set policy.

The Judge’s Response

Judge Sarah Thompson, appointed by President Obama, has not publicly commented on the administration’s complaint. However, legal analysts believe that her handling of the case has been consistent with broader judicial trends to scrutinize government actions, particularly in areas affecting vulnerable populations like undocumented immigrants.

Judge Thompson has previously ruled in favor of plaintiffs who argue that certain Trump-era immigration measures, such as the prioritization of deportation for nonviolent offenders, may violate constitutional protections. The judge’s rulings have been seen by some as attempts to rein in policies that critics view as overly harsh.

Legal experts suggest that the Trump administration’s complaint is part of a broader strategy to push back against judicial decisions that limit the scope of executive power, particularly when it comes to immigration enforcement.

Political and Legal Implications

The administration’s complaint highlights the ongoing tension between the executive and judicial branches over the scope of presidential authority, especially in the area of immigration. Throughout the Trump presidency, legal battles have raged over various policies, from the “zero tolerance” family separation policy to the construction of the border wall. The Trump administration often clashed with courts that blocked or modified its executive actions.

Critics of the administration’s latest complaint argue that it reflects a broader pattern of undermining the independence of the judiciary. “The Trump administration has shown time and again a willingness to challenge judicial decisions that don’t align with its policies,” said David Cole, Legal Director of the ACLU. “This latest move is a clear example of attempting to weaken the checks and balances that keep our system of government in check.”

Supporters of the Trump administration, however, argue that such legal challenges are part of the necessary process to ensure that policies designed to secure the nation’s borders and protect American citizens are not unduly hindered by judicial interference.

Looking Forward

The case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where legal experts predict that the Trump administration will likely face a continued uphill battle. The Ninth Circuit has historically been a key battleground for immigration-related legal disputes, with many of its rulings aligning with a more liberal interpretation of immigration law.

As the case progresses, it may set important precedents for how the courts interact with executive actions related to immigration policy. Whether the higher courts uphold or modify Judge Thompson’s rulings could have far-reaching effects on the Trump administration’s ability to enforce its immigration agenda in the final years of its term.

In the meantime, the Department of Justice is continuing to push for a resolution that would allow the government to enforce its immigration priorities without interference from the lower courts. The outcome of this case could influence future executive actions on immigration, as well as the broader conversation about the limits of judicial power in shaping national policy.