A top Department of Homeland Security official is done playing nice with the federal judges he says are engaging in “judicial sabotage” of President Trump’s immigration agenda, naming names and calling out what he describes as a coordinated effort by leftist appointees to “run out the clock” on the administration’s four-year mandate. DHS General Counsel James Percival isn’t hiding behind bureaucratic language, he’s pointing directly at specific judges he accuses of repeatedly blocking deportations of dangerous criminals through legally questionable orders that higher courts keep overturning.
Percival’s frustration boiled over in a recent Fox News interview where he singled out Biden-appointed Judge Brian Murphy in Boston for trying to stop the administration from flying eight criminal illegal aliens to South Sudan. The details are the kind that make law-abiding Americans wonder who these judges are actually protecting: among the eight blocked deportees, one had raped a child and another had raped a mentally disabled person. These weren’t asylum seekers fleeing persecution, they were predators Judge Murphy apparently believed had more right to remain in America than American citizens have to be protected from them.
The pattern Percival describes is as troubling as it is consistent. A handful of district judges, primarily appointed by Democratic presidents, keep issuing sweeping injunctions that halt deportations nationwide or block specific enforcement actions, only to be reversed by appellate courts or the Supreme Court. But the damage is done in the delay. Every month a deportation is stalled is another month a criminal remains in American communities, and every nationwide injunction forces DHS to reshuffle resources and rewrite policies to work around judicial obstacles that often evaporate on appeal.
Is this really how our constitutional system is supposed to function, with unelected district judges effectively setting immigration policy for the entire nation based on individual cases involving the worst of the worst offenders? Percival argues it’s not, and he’s taken the unusual step of publishing “Worst of the Worst” reports on the DHS website to bypass what he calls media narratives that don’t accurately report what’s happening. The strategy is clear: if the press won’t tell Americans that judges are blocking deportations of child rapists, DHS will tell them directly.
Percival’s analysis of the left’s legal strategy cuts to the heart of the matter. “They view the Trump administration as a four year hour glass, and they see the sand falling, and they know if they can just get enough crazy district judges to do enough crazy things, they can run out the clock,” he explained. It’s not about winning legal arguments on the merits, it’s about delay, obstruction, and preventing the administration from fulfilling the mandate voters gave it in 2024. The example Percival cites of Temporary Protected Status designations, some dating back to hurricanes from 1998 that the statute explicitly says should be temporary and not subject to judicial review, illustrates how far the legal resistance has strayed from any reasonable interpretation of the law.
The fundamental question here is whether elections matter when a handful of judges can effectively nullify enforcement of laws they dislike by burying them in procedural delays. Percival insists he’s not attacking the judiciary as a whole, and he’s right to make that distinction. Most judges are following the law. But the few who aren’t have managed to create a crisis at the border and in communities across America by treating their courtrooms as staging grounds for political resistance rather than venues for impartial legal judgment. When a judge blocks deportation of a child rapist, that’s not judicial review, it’s judicial sabotage. And Americans deserve to know exactly who’s doing it.
Source: Breitbart
About The Author
