A tiny share of persons detained by Dept, of Homeland Security are violent criminals.

ABC has examined DHS databases on persons detained or deported. I am skeptical of the accuracy of all official DHS data. But here are some figures from the media network’s analysis.

Of the 438,537 people detained between Jan. 20, 2025, and March 11, 2026, 13,018 had a violent felony conviction in the United States. “Violent felony” was defined as homicide, sexual assault, robbery, or assault.

Consistent with past disputes over data and interpretation of law, DHS said that “Nearly 70% of ICE arrests are criminal illegal aliens”…..”We are continuing to go after the worst of the worst — including gang members, pedophiles, and rapists. Many of the individuals that are counted as ‘non-criminals’ are actually terrorists, human rights abusers, gangsters and more; they just don’t have a rap sheet in the U.S.”

Elsewhere in the government’s response was a statement that illegal entry into the U.S. is a crime. That would suggest that 1005 of unauthorized persons in the U.S. who were not visa overstays are criminal. But, as this posting lays out, entering illegally is a misdemeanor and being in the country illegally is a civil violation (go here).

This in no way means that 3% of unauthorized persons have committed a violent crime. The figures are skewed by ICE depending on local jails to find persons to detain.

If one includes both reported and unreported violent crimes, about 2% of the total adult population in the U.S. commit a violent crime every year.  The figures are too gross and summery to draw conclusions about the rate of crime among unauthorized persons. But studies have consistently shown that unauthorized persons are less likely to commit crimes.

For example, using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, researchers reported in 2021 that unauthorized persons have a lower rate of crime than do authorized persons. “We observe considerably lower felony arrest rates among undocumented immigrants compared to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens and find no evidence that undocumented criminality has increased in recent years. Our findings help us understand why the most aggressive immigrant removal programs have not delivered on their crime reduction promises and are unlikely to do so in the future.”

In Trump v. Barbara, announced June 30, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees American citizenship to children born in the United States even when their parents are undocumented immigrants or are here only temporarily. The decision invalidated President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which declared that such children were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore were not citizens at birth.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a five-justice majority. The Court began with the text of the Citizenship Clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The central question was the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction.” The administration argued that a child lacked the required connection to the United States when the parents were unlawfully present or maintained a permanent home elsewhere. The Court rejected that interpretation. Jurisdiction, it said, means the government’s legal power over people within its territory. Undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors must obey American law and may be arrested, prosecuted, or sued here. They—and children born to them—are therefore subject to American jurisdiction.

Much of the opinion traces the rule to English common law. Under the doctrine of jus soli, or “right of the soil,” nearly every child born within the sovereign’s territory became a natural-born subject. Citizenship rested on a reciprocal relationship: the sovereign provided protection, and the person born under that protection owed allegiance. The rule applied even when a foreign mother’s presence was “momentary and uncertain,” and even when the parents could be expelled. The traditional exceptions were narrow: principally children of foreign diplomats, enemy forces occupying territory, and people born within territories controlled by another sovereign.

The American states inherited this rule after independence. In the majority’s account, birth on American soil generally made a person a citizen regardless of the parents’ nationality or intentions. The Court quoted an early American authority stating that “[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.”

The majority then placed the Fourteenth Amendment in the shadow of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott had rejected the common-law principle and held that people descended from enslaved Africans could not be national citizens. In the majority’s phrase, “blood, not soil, was made the rule.” The decision provoked intense condemnation. Frederick Douglass insisted, “By birth, we are American citizens,” while Abraham Lincoln called Dred Scott an “astonisher in legal history.”

The Civil War and Reconstruction reversed that judgment. In 1862, Attorney General Edward Bates wrote that “every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen . . . without any reference to race or color.” Congress adopted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then placed the citizenship rule in the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendment’s principal Senate sponsor described its language as “simply declaratory of . . . the law of the land already.” According to the Court, the purpose was not merely to protect formerly enslaved people but to settle the national rule of citizenship permanently and place it beyond ordinary political change.

The majority also relied heavily on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 decision recognizing the citizenship of a San Francisco-born man whose Chinese parents were not eligible for naturalization. Wong Kim Ark described the Fourteenth Amendment as “declaratory” of the “fundamental rule of citizenship by birth.” The present Court said that precedent covered children of permanent residents, temporary visitors, and undocumented immigrants alike. Foreigners who enter for “business or pleasure” receive no exemption from American law.

The administration and the dissents argued that citizenship should depend on the parents’ permanent allegiance or domicile. The majority found little historical support for that theory. Domicile and citizenship, it explained, are different: a person may live permanently in a country without becoming its citizen and may remain a citizen of a country while living elsewhere. A domicile test would also replace a clear rule based on birthplace with difficult inquiries into each parent’s legal status and intentions.

Finally, the Court emphasized what the constitutional text does not say. The words central to the Executive Order—“mother,” “father,” “lawful,” and “temporary”—are “absent from the Clause. For a simple reason: they did not matter.” A child born on American soil and governed by American law is a citizen at birth. Only the historically recognized, exceedingly narrow exceptions remain.

Updated timeline on Abrego Garcia case from the start through July 31:

El Salvadoran Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was legally residing in the United States. He crossed the border illegally in 2011 but received in 2019 a stay of removal due to immigration court finding over his application for asylum, stating likelihood that he would be persecuted by gangs in El Salvador.  An allegation by a police officer in 2019 that Abrego Garcia by virtue of tattoos was a member of the M-13 was not pursued.  He is married, with a child, and lived in the Baltimore area.

On March 12, 2025 he was pulled over driving his car by ICE personnel and taken into custody, being told that his legal status in the U.S. was revoked. On March 15 he was flown with many Venezuelans to El Salvador’s CECO (Terrorism Confinement Center) prison. (A dispute over the legality of this and other March 15 flights is being addressed in D.C. District Court- James Boasberg.)

On March 24 Abrego Garcia’s spouse sued the government in U.S. District Court in Maryland (Judge Paula Xinis) to return Abrego Garcia from El Salvador. (Go here for the March 24 suit and here for The Atlantic article.)

On March 31 The government told Judge Xinis in court that Abrego Garcia’s deportation resulted from an “administrative error,” knowing before his deportation that an immigration court had approved his stay pending an asylum decision.

On April 4 Judge Xinis issued an initial ruling ordering the U.S. government to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador by midnight April 7. She criticized the government’s lack of evidence for its claims and described his deportation as a “grievous error” that violated federal law. “As Defendants acknowledge, they had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador – let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere.” (Go here.)

The Trump administration appealed in the early hours of April 5 Judge Xinis’ order and requested an emergency stay of her decision. Among its arguments, the government said that the court has no power to force the government to retrieve a person in the custody of another country and asserted that Abrego Garcia had a “prominent role” in the M-13 gang. The government was relying solely on the assertion by a police officer in 2019. (Go here.)

Later on April 5 the government removed its attorney, Erez Reuveni, from the case and put him on administrative leave, cutting him off from email contact with the DOJ, criticizing him for displaying doubts about the case and expressing frustration with the failure of the government to respond to his requests for information. (Go here.)

On April 6, Judge Xinis reaffirmed her ruling in a scathing opinion. She rejected the administration’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction or authority to secure Abrego Garcia’s return. She emphasized that his detention in CECOT was “wholly lawless” and “shocks the conscience”. (Go here).

On April 10 the Supreme Court unanimously rules that District Court Judge Xinis can order the government to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. The order requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.  The court ruled that the scope of the term “effectuate” used by Xinis is unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive. The Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.

In 2012, the ICE had issued Policy Directive 11061.1, titled “Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens.”  The directive does not describe the scope of “facilitating.” It does refer to return travel, which is the basis for the government to say that its obligations for facilitating are only to arrange for return travel..

During April 11 – 14  Judge Xinis amends her order, instructing the administration to “take all available steps to facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return and demands daily updates on their efforts. ​The government stalls, submits de minimis reports, some late, and misrepresents the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying that it has no legal power to acquire another government to return a prisoner under its own control.

On April 14 in a meeting between Presidents Trump and Bukele, Bukele told reporters it was “absurd” to ask if he would return Abrego Garcia. Bukele said, “Are you suggesting I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? How can I return him to the United States, like I smuggle him into the United States? Of course, I’m not going to do it.”

On April 15 Judge Xinis describes and severely criticizes the government’s failure to respond to her and the Supreme Court’s rulings and orders “expedited discovery.” By April 21, the government must respond to up to 15 written questions and provide up to 15 relevant documents. Depositions of four named officials must be completed by April 23. Plaintiffs can request to interview up to two more people if needed. Warning the government, she wrote: “Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery focuses on securing compliance with this Court’s amended order at ECF No. 51 and other related directives, and in the face of ongoing refusal to comply, to assist the Court in determining whether contempt proceedings are warranted….Should Defendants fail or refuse to engage in the above-described discovery in good faith, Plaintiffs are free to seek separate sanctions on an expedited basis.”

On April 17, ruling on an appeal by the government to Xinis’ discovery order, Appeals Court Judge Harvie Wilkinson blasts the government: “It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

On April 18 DHS issues a report saying that Abrego Garcia is a suspected trafficker, based on a incident in 2022: “Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a MS-13 gang member, illegal alien from El Salvador, and suspected human trafficker. The facts reveal he was pulled over with eight individuals in a car on an admitted three-day journey from Texas to Maryland with no luggage…The facts speak for themselves, and they reek of human trafficking. The media’s sympathetic narrative about this criminal illegal gang member has completely fallen apart. We hear far too much about the gang members and criminals’ false sob stories and not enough about their victims.”

On April 24 Border Czar Tom Homan spoke to reporters:  “We are not acting in bad faith. We removed a demonstrable public safety threat, a wife beater, a designated terrorist from the United States. He’s home, a citizen of El Salvador, who had two orders of removal by two separate immigration judges in the past. If he actually gets back, he will be detained again…I don’t think any court can order another nation, a sovereign nation, to take a citizen of its country and return him. I think he’s got plenty of due process (some paraphrased).

On April 24 Judge Xinis, after accusing the government on April 23 of “willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations,” orders a stay until April 30 given confidential discussions between the plaintiffs and the government.

During May: Judge Xinis oversees confidential discussions between plaintiffs and the administration, including discovery. On May 16, she expresses frustration that the administration is dragging out the case.

On May 16 D.C District Judge James E. Boasberg, presiding over the case J.G.G. v. Trump gave the Trump administration one week to identify its efforts to return García, as well as 137 Venezuelan men deported to an El Salvador prison under the wartime Alien Enemies Act.

On May 21 a grand jury at the Nashville Division of the Middle Tennessee Federal District Court indicted Garcia for conspiracy to smuggle persons in the U.S. and conspiracy to smuggle within the U.S. over 1,000 undocumented person, with one hundred separate trips from the southwest (mainly Houston, it appears) to other destinations. The indictment also alleges that Garcia had at least five co-conspirators. Substantially all evidence tying Garcia to smuggling that is held be the prosecution appears to be based on interviews with co-conspirators in American prisons. The indictment mentions no fact directly showing action by Garcia is a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, which appears to be the reason the case was brought in that state. The Indictment alleges that Garcia is a member of M-13, but does not charge him with any criminal acts associated with M-13. (Go here for the indictment and here for detailed analysis of the case.)

The indictment reportedly led to the resignation of federal prosecutor Ben Schrader, wjo led the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Nashville. Schrader reported objected to what he reportedly thought was the political nature of the indictment. (Go here.)

On June 6: Attorney General Pam Bondi announces that Garcia has been returned to the United States from El Salvador and faces criminal charges. She alleges that Garcia was involved in illegal transportation of guns and drugs but no such charges were filed.

On June 7: Garcia appears in court in Nashville.

On July 31: Judge Crenshaw responds to comment by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem reference to Garcia as a “horrible human being” and a “monster” who “should never be released.”

On December 11: Judge Xinis grants Abrego Garcia habeas petition and orders him released from custody.

2026

March, 2026:  U.S. continues to seek to deport Abrego Garcia to Liberia. A court bars his deportation.

May 22, 2026 Judge Crenshaw dismisses the criminal indictment against Abrego Garcia. Crenshaw finds the government reopened a closed investigation, then rushed an indictment against Abrego Garcia only after his lawsuit forced his return from El Salvador. He found prosecutor McGuire wasn’t independent, but closely directed by DOJ official Singh. Throughout his decision, Crenshaw uses terms such as “vindictive prosecution” “tainted investigation” and “abuse of prosecuting power.”

As of July 31, 2026: bar against deportation remains, but can be lifted by Judge Xinis.

The Trump administration has been given Iran information on the sly.

The Iranian American Legal Defense Fund says it found that that in early 2025 the United States told Iran that it wanted to “get rid” of Iranians it wanted to deport.

Asylum seeker “CY” told the Fund: “A female representative of the Iranian regime from the Iranian Interest Section was on the other line of this phone call. The representative knew my name, my A number, and all the details of my asylum case, including the basis of my asylum claim, where I was in my asylum process, and even she told me that she had the entire transcript of my fear interview. The representative told me that, as we speak, she has my whole case file in her hands, and that this was all sent to them by ICE.”

The Fund also reports that “On the night of June 11, 2026, the United States government loaded asylum seekers onto a deportation flight bound for the Central African Republic, one of the most dangerous countries on earth. Among those on that flight was at least one Iranian national with a court-recognized fear of persecution…..The U.S. State Department tells its own citizens to draft a will and leave DNA samples before traveling to CAR.”

On July 15, the Fund sued the U.S. government. The suit alleged that as of March, ICE was detaining 400 to 500 Iranian asylum seekers, according to statements by an Iranian official. It alleged that the United States had provided information to Iran on at least 300 detainees and that Iran was involved in deporting up to 160 Iranian nationals. Detainees were allegedly told they could return to Iran or face deportation to a third country.

Go here and here.

The Dept of Homeland Securityhas been losing most court cases during the Trump 2 administration.

Politico reports that “1 year in, ICE’s mass detention policy is on the ropes.”

Kyle Cheney writes that “Federal judges have spent a full year overwhelmingly rejecting ICE’s effort to lock up people the Trump administration is seeking to deport — finding a combination of illegality, unconstitutionality, incompetence and cruelty at a shocking scale. More than 15,000 times.

The 15,000 rulings against the administration compare to about 2,200 instances in which judges upheld ICE detentions. Those 2,200 rulings have been concentrated in a handful of courts and driven by a small subset of judges.

In a July 8, 2025, memo, the agency said agents would detain, without bond, tens of thousands of people with deep roots in the U.S. and overwhelmingly without criminal records. It’s a group that, until last year, would have at least been afforded bond hearings before facing indefinite detention.

The Trump administration has now been shot down by at least 464 federal judges, with just 54 — overwhelmingly appointed by Trump — ruling in the administration’s favor.

At the heart is ICE’s novel reading of 30-year-old immigration laws that every prior administration understood to apply only to people who had recently crossed the border illegally.

But since that July 8, 2025, ICE memo, the administration has argued that this “mandatory detention” applies to virtually anyone who entered the country without permission, no matter how long they’ve resided in the U.S., whether they’ve established roots in their communities, have spouses or children who are U.S. citizens, or have flawless attendance records at ICE check-ins or immigration court proceedings.

What has unfolded since has been one of the most extraordinary legal rebukes in modern history. For a year, those detained under the new policy have flooded federal courts in every corner of the country with tens of thousands of emergency petitions seeking release or bond hearings. And judges have responded by ordering their release or, at minimum, a bond hearing aimed at forcing the government to justify their continued detention.

A year in, appeals courts have now started ruling on ICE’s mandatory detention policy. And while the first two to decide — the Louisiana-based 5th Circuit and the Missouri-based 8th Circuit — sided with the administration, the story since then has been a continuation of the rout against ICE.[For a February 6, 2026 decision supporting the administration, go here.]

Appeals courts based in New York, Georgia, Ohio and Colorado have since rejected ICE’s `enormous parts of the country — including Florida, where a disproportionate share of ICE detainees are located — to reject the administration’s approach.

Rulings in the remaining five federal appeals courts are imminent.

A panel of judges in the 5th Circuit — which covers Texas, the busiest state for ICE detention cases — issued a ruling [July 2, Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, go here] that dramatically undercut ICE’s year-old mandatory detention policy. The 2-1 decision concluded that ICE detainees held under the policy must be afforded a bond hearing within 90 days or immediately released.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later vacated this decision. A panel of three judges from the conservative court, which covers Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana, had held July 2 that unjustified detention for an indefinite period would violate the Constitution. ICE and Department of Homeland Security officials had appealed that judgment, petitioning the full appeals court to rehear the case. The court will consider the case in September.

Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, dismissed on May 22  States v. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, on grounds that it was a case of retaliatory prosecution.  DHS remains committed to deport him, but the criminal case against him is dead. Here is what brought this case begun in March 2025 to May 2026

On May 21, 2025, in anticipation of his being returned from El Salvador per court order (which he was on about June 6),  he was indicted in Tennessee for conspiracy to smuggle persons in the U.S. and conspiracy to smuggle within the U.S. over 1,000 undocumented persons. The evidence against him appears to be that from others who were jailed or imprisoned for smuggling. A timeline of the case from March to June 7, when Garcia appeared in court in Tennessee, is here.

DHS had reopened a closed investigation into a 2022 Tennessee traffic stop. The court treated that reopening as the starting point of the vindictive taint: the government had previously closed the case after removing him, saying its goals were accomplished. After his successful lawsuit did it revive the matter.

The government was explicit about the connection. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche publicly linked the renewed investigation to a Maryland judge’s questioning of Abrego’s deportation.

Aakash Singh, a senior official reporting up the DOJ chain, then closely supervised the path to indictment. He pressed for charging information, asked about possible charges, requested drafts, monitored timing, and told the team to keep matters close until they got “clearance.”

The government used the criminal case to bring Abrego back to the United States—the very thing courts had already ordered it to facilitate. The judge concluded that, but for Abrego’s successful lawsuit to be returned, the government would not have brought the prosecution

On May 22, the administration issued a policy memo which was phrased in a way to say that, excepting extraordinary circumstances, persons residing in the U.S. and seeking a green card have to return to their country of origin and apply there. About half of all green cards are issued to persons residing in the U.S. at the time of the application or while the application is being reviewed.

Hours after the policy was issued, USCIS issued a confusing statement that appeared to qualify the draconian force of the memo.  Boundless, the immigration assistance firm, analyzed the actual wording of formal policy as it stands regarding “adjustment of status” of persons in the U.S.  Boundless says, as of early May 23, that the actual effect seems not so draconian, but rather an artless statement on a standing policy that conversion of a temporary visa to a green card is at the discretion of the USCIS.

Let’s look at what is at stake if people are in fact retuired to return to their country of origin.

The wait time for a green card is very roughly six to 18 months. Further, the applicant risks not being able to return to the U.S. during the application process and if the application is denied perhaps forever.

Typical instances of persons in the U.S. today who seek a green card.

Spouses, parents, and minor children of U.S. citizens. Spouses or children of green-card holders, adult children of U.S. citizens, or siblings of U.S. citizens.

Students, especially F-1 students, who later qualify through employment or family.

Example: a graduate student who marries a U.S. citizen, or a student who later obtains employer sponsorship.

H-1B and other temporary workers.  In all they account for the majority of employment based green card awards in a year (capped at 140,000).

Refugees and asylees. This is a catastrophic problem for these persons.

Crime victims, trafficking victims, and abuse survivors.

Diversity visa lottery winners already in the U.S.

Unauthorized persons.

 

The Illinois Accountability Commission (IAC) was established by Governor  Pritzker in October 2025, in response to the federal immigration enforcement surge in Chicago. The Commission issued report on April 30, 2026. Here are highlights, followed by a summary of the “Broadview 6” case which ended with charges withdrawn and the judge severely criticizing the prosecutor.

Some milestones in ICE engagement in Chicago

September 8, 2025: ICE launched Operation Midway Blitz, claiming it targeted “the worst of the worst” — individuals with criminal records.

ICE detained persons in the Broadview Processing Center in Broadview, Illinois. Detainees reported 80 people sharing one toilet, sleeping on concrete floors, no hygiene products, extreme cold, lights on 24 hours, food withheld as a threat, and pressure to sign voluntary deportation forms. People were transferred to out-of-state facilities with no notice to families or lawyers.

September 10, 2025: CBP Commander Gregory Bovino arrived in Chicago to oversee operations. Hundreds of ICE and CBP agents were deployed plus a counterterrorism tactical unit.

September 12, 2025: ICE agents shot and killed Silverio Villegas González during a traffic stop in Franklin Park. A Mexican national, he had lived in the U.S. since 2007and had just dropped his two young sons at school and daycare.

October 22–23, 2025: A two-day military-style occupation of Little Village (“La Villita”), the heart of Chicago’s Mexican American community and its second-highest retail district. CBP Commander Gregory Bovino led dozens of masked, armed agents. Tear gas, pepper balls, and flashbangs deployed against non-violent crowds; bystanders tackled; businesses locked their doors.

October 24, 2025: Stephen Miller told Fox News: “To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties… no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist can prevent you.”

October 28–31, 2025: Gregory Bovino’s deposition in a court case. Judge Sara Ellis later found his testimony “not credible,” saying he was “evasive” and had “lied multiple times.”

December 23, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federalization of National Guard troops to protect federal personnel in Illinois was unlawful.

Late 2025 – early 2026: Aggressive ICE presence in Chicago ends.

Some findings:

ICE acknowledged to Congress that 81% of the persons arrested had no convictions and only 40% had a final order of removal.

There were 314 separate uses of physical violence by federal actors between September 2025 and January 2026, and at least 63 deployments of chemical weapons. Two people were shot — one killed. Multiple chokeholds were used. High-speed vehicle pursuits in residential neighborhoods occurred regularly.

Out of hundreds of criminal arrests made during Operation Midway Blitz, only one resulted in a conviction.

DHS issued false press releases about both shootings and numerous other incidents. Body camera footage consistently contradicted official accounts

The Broadview Six

On September 26, 2025, protesters confronted federal agents outside ICE’s Broadview. A grand jury indicted six defendants on a count of felony conspiracy for their involvement in the protest.  The case was before Judge April Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a former prosecutor in the office which had brought the case.  Federal prosecutors dropped the felony conspiracy charge. The remaining defendants faced a single misdemeanor count of forcibly impeding a federal agent.

Defense attorneys pressed for access to the grand jury transcripts. Judge Perry agreed to review them herself. Prosecutors wound up redacting portions of the transcripts they provided to Perry. She demanded unredacted copies — but moments into the April 29 hearing, prosecutors instead announced they were dropping the conspiracy charge altogether.

On May 21, 2026, Perry outlined misconduct by prosecutors. They communicated with grand jurors outside the jury room, excused dissenting jurors, and redacted misconduct acts from transcripts. U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros then dropped all remaining charges with prejudice, meaning they can never be refiled. Perry said:  “I was incredibly shocked by the redactions that were made. I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts involving prosecutors who are the most junior of prosecutors to several U.S. [Attorneys].” She floated the idea of sanctions against the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecutorial misconduct and ethical violations.

The appellate court of DC has barred the Trump administration from a strategy to effectively wipe out the asylum program for many new applicants. In a nutshell: executive branch must use the removal and asylum procedures Congress enacted; it cannot replace them by presidential proclamation and agency guidance.

In Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, et al. v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of DHS, the D.C. Circuit ruled on April 24 that the government’s power to suspend entry under certain statutory provisions does not include a power to create new removal procedures for people already inside the United States.

President Trump’s Proclamation 10888, issued on January 20, 2025, described the southern-border situation as an “invasion” and sought to suspend entry for people crossing the southern border outside a “designated port of entry” and also for certain people entering at ports without sufficient documents. DHS guidance created a new procedure called “Direct Repatriation.”  The court ruled this illegal. The court emphasized the language in immigration law saying that any person who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States may apply for asylum “irrespective” of status and “whether or not” they arrived at a designated port.

Other initiatives to cut the asylum program:

work authorization A February 2026 proposed rule would change employment authorization for people with pending asylum applications by extending the waiting period to apply for a work permit to 365 days.  there is a multiyear backlog in immigration court asylum hearings.

More intensive screening, vetting, and prioritization of asylum-related applications. The February proposal also says USCIS could prioritize asylum adjudication when derogatory information appears during review of a work-authorization application.

Replacement of judges. More than 100 immigration judges have been terminated or pressured to resign from the approximately 750 serving  judges. In several high-profile cases, judges were fired immediately after ruling against the administration, including two judges who dismissed deportation cases involving pro-Palestinian student activists. The administration has appointed 143 new judges to replace those removed, including many former immigration prosecutors from the Department of Homeland Security and military attorneys. During training sessions for new judges in October 2025, top immigration court leaders instructed recruits that asylum “should be granted only in rare circumstances”. Former immigration judge Jeremiah Johnson characterized the changes as “a dismantling of the court system.”