Rulings coming fast and furious in lawsuits over Trump’s policies on immigration, elections and DEI

The US Supreme Court. (AP file photo)

• The legal disputes playing out across the country are far from over though as administration attorneys are pushing back

WASHINGTON: The Trump administration was handed a rapid-fire series of court losses Wednesday night and Thursday in lawsuits filed over its policies on immigration, elections and its crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in schools.
But the legal disputes playing out across the country are far from over, and administration attorneys pushed back, asking the federal appellate courts and the US Supreme Court to overturn some of the unfavorable decisions.
Here’s a look at the latest developments in some of the more than 170 lawsuits filed over President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
DEI
Judges blocked the administration from enforcing its diversity, equity and inclusion crackdown in education in at least two lawsuits Thursday. The decisions came ahead of a Friday deadline that the Education Department set for states to sign a form certifying they would not use “illegal DEI practices.”
A federal judge in New Hampshire blocked a series of directives from the Education Department, including a memo ordering an end to any practice that differentiates people based on their race, and another asking for assurances that schools don’t use DEI practices deemed discriminatory.
Judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C., also halted portions of the department’s anti-DEI efforts.
Elections
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from immediately enacting certain changes to how federal elections are run, including adding a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form. Still, the judge allowed other parts of Trump’s sweeping executive order on US elections — including a directive to tighten mail ballot deadlines — to go forward for now.
US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington sided with voting rights groups and Democrats, saying that the Constitution gives the power to regulate federal elections to states and Congress — not the president. She noted federal lawmakers are currently working on their own legislation to require proof of citizenship to vote.
Immigration
The Trump administration is appealing a judge’s order barring it from deporting people from Colorado under a rarely used 1798 law.
Attorneys for the administration filed the appeal in the 10th US Circuit Court, arguing that Denver-based US District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney lacks jurisdiction and that it is legally sound to invoke the Alien Enemies Act against the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
In another case out of Maryland, the Trump administration was ordered to facilitate the return of a man who was deported to El Salvador last month despite having a pending asylum application. US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland said the government violated a 2019 settlement agreement when it deported the 20-year-old man, a Venezuelan native identified only as Cristian in court papers. Gallagher cited another federal judge’s order for the government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been living in Maryland and was accidentally deported the same day as Cristian.
In a Texas lawsuit, a court document from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official was unsealed, revealing that migrants subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act are only getting about 12 hours to decide if they want to contest their planned deportation to a prison in El Salvador. Earlier this week, government attorneys in a different Alien Enemies Act lawsuit told a judge in Colorado that migrants were being given 24 hours to make the decision.
The American Civil Liberties Union says the time period violates a Supreme Court order that allowed the Trump administration to continue deportations but required the government give detainees a “reasonable time” to argue to a judge that they should not be removed.
Yet another federal judge based in San Francisco barred the Trump administration from denying federal funds to “sanctuary” cities that limit immigration cooperation.
US Judge William Orrick said the temporary ban is appropriate because the executive orders are unconstitutional, just like they were in 2017 when Trump announced a similar order. Orrick said the administration can’t freeze any federal funds in San Francisco and more than a dozen other municipalities until the lawsuit brought by those cities is resolved.
Transgender rights
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow enforcement of a ban on transgender people in the military, while lawsuits over the ban move forward in court. The high court filing follows a brief order from a federal appeals court that kept in place a court order blocking the policy nationwide.
Trump signed an executive order a week into his term that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness. In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies transgender people from military service.
But in March, US District Court Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma, Washington, ruled for several long-serving transgender military members who say the ban is insulting and discrimin