US federal judges at the centre of battles over Trump policies, voter data and their own conduct
Federal judges across the United States have delivered a run of rulings on immigration enforcement, election databases and the Trump administration's own conduct — even as some judges face misconduct allegations and impeachment.
A US federal judge is a judge serving on a court established under Article Three of the US Constitution. Federal judges include Supreme Court justices, circuit judges of the Courts of Appeals, district judges of the District Courts, and judges of the Court of International Trade. Congress sets their salaries, which cannot be reduced while
Federal judges across the United States have delivered a string of rulings against the Trump administration in recent weeks, blocking parts of its immigration enforcement and election efforts while also facing scrutiny over their own conduct. One judge blocked New York's ban on ICE officers wearing masks, though a state law limiting police cooperation with ICE was left standing. Another dismissed President Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service as an improper exercise in self-dealing. The sharpest disputes concern federal citizenship-check databases. A judge ordered four states be given access to citizenship data for voter checks, finding that the Department of Homeland Security violated a settlement by disabling features of the SAVE database. A different judge had halted the database's nationwide use. On June 22, according to reports, a judge ruled a revamped citizenship-check tool could no longer be used, finding it could wrongly remove eligible voters. The rulings matter because they test the legal footing of core Trump policies, from immigration enforcement to voter-roll purges. They also arrive as multiple federal judges have reportedly criticised the Justice Department's conduct as unlawful, unethical and unseemly.
A string of rulings against the Trump administration
In New York, a federal judge blocked the state's ban on ICE officers wearing masks, but left intact a separate state law prohibiting cooperation between local police and immigration enforcement. The split ruling handed each side something, though the practical effect is to preserve New York's limits on how its officers interact with federal agents.
A separate federal judge dismissed President Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, ruling that the case amounted to an improper exercise in self-dealing — a president, in effect, suing an agency of his own government.
The administration has also struggled in its campaign against sanctuary jurisdictions. A federal judge dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit challenging Minnesota's sanctuary policies, according to reports. Sanctuary jurisdictions have mostly prevailed against such federal lawsuits, though the Trump administration has secured some limited court victories.
The fight over federal citizenship-check databases
Federal courts have handed down a series of conflicting rulings over how citizenship data may be used to vet voter rolls. One judge ordered that four states be given access to citizenship data for voter checks, and found that the Department of Homeland Security had violated a settlement by disabling features of the SAVE database, the federal system used to verify immigration status. A different judge, however, had earlier halted nationwide use of SAVE altogether.
According to reports, a federal judge ruled on June 22 that a revamped federal tool used in the Trump administration's election efforts could no longer be used to check citizenship. The judge found the database could wrongly remove eligible voters from the rolls, according to those reports. Taken together, the decisions leave states and federal agencies without a clear, consistent answer on whether such databases may be used to screen voter registrations.
Judges turn on the Justice Department
Federal judges across the country have reportedly turned sharp language on the Trump Justice Department, describing its conduct in terms including unlawful, unethical and unseemly, according to reports. The criticism has targeted the legal basis for parts of President Trump's agenda, including mass firings of federal workers and an immigration enforcement campaign that has led to imprisonments, reports suggest.
Courts have also moved against the administration's immigration freeze. According to reports, a federal court ordered US Citizenship and Immigration Services to resume processing stalled green card and work authorization applications that had been held up by the freeze. The reported judicial pushback adds to a widening pattern of friction between the federal bench and the Justice Department, with judges questioning not only individual policies but the department's conduct in defending them.
Scrutiny on the bench — and how federal judges are protected
Federal judges have themselves come under scrutiny, with alleged misconduct surfacing in three states. In Georgia, a Republican lawmaker filed articles of impeachment against an Atlanta judge accused of having sex in her chambers, then denying it to investigators before changing her account.
The institutional protections around the federal bench are significant. Federal judges serve on courts established under Article III of the Constitution: the chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court, circuit judges of the Courts of Appeals, district judges of the District Courts, and judges of the Court of International Trade. Their salaries are set by Congress, and their compensation cannot be diminished while they remain in office — a safeguard designed to insulate them from political pressure.
Frequently asked questions
What did the federal judge rule on New York's ICE mask ban?
A US federal judge blocked New York's ban on ICE officers wearing masks, while allowing a separate state law prohibiting cooperation between police and ICE to remain in effect. The ruling split the difference between the state's two measures, striking down the mask restriction but preserving the limits on local police working with federal immigration agents.
Why was Trump's lawsuit against the IRS thrown out?
A federal judge ruled that President Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service was an improper exercise in self-dealing. The decision rejected the president's legal action against his own government's tax agency, finding the suit represented a conflict in which Trump was effectively on both sides of the dispute.
What is the SAVE database dispute about?
A US judge ordered that four states be given access to citizenship data for voter checks, after finding the Department of Homeland Security violated a settlement by disabling features of the SAVE database. Separately, a different judge had halted nationwide use of the SAVE database, and on June 22 a judge barred a revamped federal citizenship-check tool, finding it could wrongly remove eligible voters from the rolls.
Why are federal judges facing misconduct scrutiny?
Federal judges faced scrutiny after alleged misconduct in three states. In Georgia, a Republican lawmaker filed articles of impeachment against an Atlanta judge who allegedly had sex in her chambers and denied it to investigators before changing her account. Details of the allegations in the other two states were not specified in the sources consulted.
Is Judge Thomas Schroeder retiring?
According to reports, US District Judge Thomas Schroeder has sought senior status, a form of semi-retirement for federal judges. Reports say the move would create a vacancy on the federal bench in North Carolina to be filled by presidential appointment, and that Schroeder is the third federal judge in the state to seek senior status this year.
Compiled from reporting by 10 independent outlets. How we source our reporting.
