Judge Blocks Ending TPS Protections, Claims Trump Admin is Telling Illegal Aliens to ‘Purify Their Blood’
“The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek. Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood.”
Judge Trina Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California released one of the stupidest and most insulting rulings.
Thompson blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from revoking temporary protection status (TPS) for Hondurans, Nicaraguans, and Nepalese.
Was the decision based on laws? No.
Thompson made her ruling based on DEI. The first paragraph of her ruling:
The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek. Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood. The court disagrees.
What does that have to do with TPS? Nothing:
To qualify for TPS, an individual must meet certain criteria including having been “continuously physically present in the United States since the effective date of the most recent designation,” he or she must have “continuously resided in the United States since such date as the [Secretary] may designate,” he or she must timely register for TPS, and he or she must not have a disqualifying criminal record. Id. at § 1254a(c). An individual who has been convicted of any felony or 2 or more misdemeanors in the United States does not qualify for TPS. Id. at § 1254a(c)(2)(B). Those who qualify for TPS are protected from removal and are granted work authorization. Id. at § 1254a(a). TPS applicants must also pay all fees associated with applying for TPS. Id. at § 1254a(c)(1)(B).
Nicaragua and Honduras received TPS protections in 1999 due to Hurricane Mitch. Former President Barack Obama gifted Nepalese TPS protections in 2015 due to an earthquake.
Temporary. If those people have been in America for that long why are they not on a pathway to citizenship?!
But no. Even though the TPS is literally supposed to be temporary, the Biden-appointed judge uses racism to block TPS expirations.
It has everything to do with their rhetoric or how the administration’s lawyer behaved during argument.
“Defendants were also notably silent regarding Plaintiffs’ argument that barring all judicial review would allow the President to grant or deny TPS as a lever for his negotiations with countries, and without concern for the express guidelines that Congress requires in the TPS statute,” wrote Thompson.
Thompson agreed with the Plaintiffs’ argument and added that the Court “does not forget that this country has bartered with human lives.”
The lady literally said that ending TPS protections is the same as the slave trade.
I’m glad Will took a screenshot of this stupid footnote. It’s nothing but academics, not law.
Wherein a federal judge argues that terminating TPS protections for non-citizens is akin to the transatlantic slave trade pic.twitter.com/yOvwT2AnSu
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) August 1, 2025
I’m finding a few legitimate legal reasons why a court would block ending the TPS protections.
But Thompson does not latch onto any of them. It’s all DEI.
“By stereotyping the TPS program and immigrants as invaders that are criminal, and by highlighting the need for migration management, Secretary Noem’s statements perpetuate the discriminatory belief that certain immigrant populations will replace the white population,” insisted Thompson.
Are you kidding me…
“In totality, Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence demonstrating racial and discriminatory animus in support of their Fifth Amendment claim,” said Thompson. “Color is neither a poison nor a crime.”
Thompson did not give an end date to her ruling, but scheduled the next hearing for November 18.
I have a feeling the Trump administration will appeal Thompson’s ruling.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
sounds like she is the one who thinks unpure blood is the problem. That phrasing is no where in law. who are the racist ones again?
So is the photo up top Judge Trina Thompson, or is It Kristi Noem? Captions provide needed context.
Ah! Miraculously the photo changes, also providing other welcome context. Thank you!
Yes, we really should have captions for the headline photos. Period.
Can we deport some judges while we are at it?
They will be right at home in a Banana Republic running kangaroo court systems in which laws have no meaning.
We are a nation of laws. If that’s not the job you wanted, you should go get the job that better fits your world view.
Her court is in SF in the Tenderloin. It is banana republic.
This judge is a complete and utter idiot. It’s a wonder Plugs Biden didn’t nominate her to the supreme court. According to her we are now not only racists against blacks but hispanics (not a race) and asians. What the hell is next from these loons?
Roberts if he had any brains would wake up and do something. His legacy, such as it is, is trash. He is probably despised by all sides now and when the books are written about his court he will be trashed without mercy and deservedly so.
“ the Biden-appointed judge…”
That’s all I need to know of her “qualifications” right there.
Any attorney that would accept the nomination of a fraudulent, corrupt and senile president is, by definition, not qualified to hold that judgeship.
She apparently does not read SCOTUS decisions as they’re released otherwise she would not have ruled as she did.
Or she just doesn’t care and thinks she make up shit and it’ll stick.
she knows what SCOTUS said, but she also knows that there will be no consequences for her defying the law
She the back up for ketanji. lol
Let’s flip this script.
The judge is using the races/colors/national origins of a group of people to shield them from consequences that normally adhere to law-breaking. How is this “equal justice under the law” when the law (and the consequences for violating it) can still be attached to the actions of others not a part of one of those races, colors, or national origins that she’s protecting?
Where does she even have the authority to demand that a discretionary program under the control of the Prez/DHS continue?
She doesn’t. This would be a decision President Trump should ignore.
He should, but he won’t. That would be acquiescing to their image that he is an authoritarian.
I’m very curious to see what Jonathan Turley has to say about this decision.
She made a policy decision, not one based on law. As far as I’m concerned, she’s unsuited to mop the floor at a courthouse, let alone sit on the bench.
Only bench she should be sitting on is one in the park, feeding pigeons.
“… to Ourselves and our Posterity”.
Not to any aliens.
This certainly qualifies as no longer being “good Behavior”.
I think she’s declared herself in rebellion against the Constitution of the United States by claiming the authority to set policy despite the clearly written laws that were passed by elected representatives and signed by the elected chief executive.
Well, now, here’s one of the problems. TPS is NOT about living the American dream, or anything else. It’s about not being sent home temporarily because of some awful, short-term incident in their home country. All it does is pause their removal status while some other thing is happening that would endanger them if they returned. It has NOTHING to do with why they were here in the first place and only applies to sending them home during that emergency period.
Can SCOTUS recommend to Congress the removal of specific judges from the federal bench? Has this ever been done? Is there anything preventing SCOTUS from so doing?
Just asking for a friend who has been making a list. If SCOTUS asks me for it, I can see to it that it’s delivered.
Regretfully, the Supreme Court does not have the constitutional right to remove a judge. That can only be done by Congress. CommoChief below does, though, have a good idea. Abolish the inferior courts by defunding them in CR.
They don’t have to go the “defund the inferior federal courts” route. What Congress may “ordain and establish” Congress may revoke and remove with an appropriate Act of Congress.
He didn’t ask if the Supremes can remove a judge. He asked if they can recommend to Congress that THEY remove a judge.
Judge doesn’t care what the law is.
When the only consequence of insane lunatic rulings is simply being overruled, leftist hacks in robes will continue to do it. Because there is simply no consequence.
Congress can simply defund these judges and eliminate their job. Congress controls the purse strings and created the courts. The only court in the constitution is the Supreme Court. By defunding these judges it puts Chief Justice Roberts on notice that if he doesn’t fix it, Congress will.
Expecting Congress to Do Something is like expecting Santa Claus to fill the space under your Christmas tree for your kids.
Wait. What are you saying?
Don’t introduce any new ideas. Congress might start using taxpayer dollars to buy kids christmas gifts.
so you are saying there’s a chance?
Congress could ‘eliminate their job’ by choosing to do away with inferior courts. No District or Circuit Courts means those Judicial ‘Offices’ are eliminated. When no Office exists then the Judge who formerly occupied it wasn’t removed from the office. Congress doesn’t have the stones for this.
Congress can’t without or eliminate Judicial Salaries …so long as they pass a budget or a CR. Congress can’t be forced to pass a budget but if/when they do they can’t reduce Judicial compensation. Congress could cut all the support staff though; clerks, secretaries, admin folks. The Executive could redirect the deployment of US Marshals away from providing any assistance to the Judiciary and put them to other missions. No stones for this either.
What Congress may “ordain and establish” (Article III § 1) Congress can revoke and eliminate. And as holders of the purse strings Congress could also deallocate any and all monies for salaries and wages as well eliminate all funding for any support services. In the end the only Justices that Congress have to pay are the nine that sit on the Supreme Court as that is the only court that is constitutionally established.
No, as CommoChief points out, the Constitution specifically forbids reducing the salary of the judges. And for good reason – that was what the English tyrant had done to try and manipulate American judges. But they can entirely do away with the courts, in whole or part.
Congress could also impeach
The president is tasked with defending the Constitution, and this judge is clearly setting herself up as sole ruler of the United States. She ignored law and Constitutional powers to impose a policy she prefers.
wait until they completely take over the fed…the banking system
They’re using the same definition of “temporary” as the one used by the Illinois Tollway: ” ‘temporary’ = going away over my dead body.”
add her ruling/thinking in with the racist cincy blm exalting the beat down of white people and you get your
new colonizers
same as the old colonizers minus anyyyyyy genius/ innovation / academic /scientific agenda
I made the mistake of listening to a follow-up interview with Parks. She’s a nasty racist, who clearly wants more violence, so long as pale people are the targets.
Besides not staying in her “legal lane” and making her ruling based on law and legal precedent, the judge cannot get American history correct, She states in the opinion, “For example the United States was an active participant in the transatlantic slave trade which uprooted individuals in Africa and brought them to this continent.” The United States, through governmental agencies, never was an active participant in the slave trade. Yes there were some states who fostered and private individuals who participated but not the United States through its governmental agencies. In fact in 1808, the United States abolished the importation of captive Africans into the United States. This was just 32 years after our declaration of independence. So for over 87% of the existence of the United States, the United States has been active in abolishing the transatlantic slave trade.
why the facts of africans starting the slave trade is front and center just shows what level of fear we live under in not being allowed to present those facts
correction:
is not front and center
I’m afraid there are many who hold opinions of slavery much like those that prevailed in the ancient world: “not for me and mine, but otherwise who cares”.
Historical revisionists are trying hard to re-write history on the pyramids in egypt, claiming that it wasn’t technically slave labor because the workers were given food and beer and took pride in their work.
This order is Cray Cray. The granting or revocation of TPS (a temporary exemption from normal immigration rules) is a matter of both National Security and Foreign Policy. These are apex Executive powers not normally subject to Judicial restraint. I suppose one might make a long shot due process argument but since the initial grant didn’t follow ‘due process’ it seems absurd to allow a demand for due process to revoke the grant. At root these folks got a waiver from the regular immigration system rules by Executive fiat and now object to an Executive revoking the grant which subjects them to the regular immigration system processes. This is a political policy question/decision for the POTUS to make and ultimately for We the People to choose to support/reject at the ballot.
You mean you don’t know about the “Ratchet Rule” in common law? It’s right there in the Penumbras & Emanations section.
The problem with aliens is that they can’t be Americans usually. Ask if it’s okay for an infidel to draw the Prophet or flush the Koran. If they don’t think so, then they can’t follow the rules. Those rules determine who’s an American even if they’re not, and who isn’t even if they are.
The rules are called the Constitution.
You could ask for that matter whether antisemitism is legal.
Can we also ask all those questions in English?
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Angry (ignorant) black woman from oakland, educated at bezerkely. Clown show.
Judges who issue rulings that have no relation to the law, should be instantly suspended or removed without pay.
But there really are no consequences. They don’t need to care. This iss a problem.
the pictures side-by-side has to be labeled as racist>>>syndey sweeny style
🎼
“Which one is not like the other?”
🎼
I’m kind of curious about one things. The dramacrat judges are all insane and don’t care about the constitution apparently. We know that. And this has never been more self evident that when Trump has been president. My question is what about in the past? Does anyone know whether this is just a recent bout of insanity in the judiciary or have there been similar periods in the past?
That’s northern california. Its like that all the time.
Yes I know that appellate court (9th?) there is overruled by the supreme court all the time now.
What I’m asking is if you go back 75 years, 125 years. 175 years do see still see this overly partisan lawfare crap.
Being overruled on appeal USED to be a huge professional slap. It meant your legal thinking was fallacious. No longer, lower court rulings are now merely delays in service to anti administration activists.
Did the self-adorning hairstyle on the “right” or “left” consume more time away from the People’s business, i.e., the “Constitutional” / “congressional” charge ?
Her actual hair is cut extremely short to allow her to wear the wig.
Probably both pay hair stylist $300 to do “touch up” on their hair once a week in their private offices. With some way to pay for it as “discretionary office expense” so it doesn’t come out their pocket. Because they are “ladies”. You aren’t misogynist are you?
She might be a woman (but, I’m not a biologist), but – based on this ruling – she is no lady.
Can the moral purity crowd that advocates not voting for anyone they label RINOS take a bow now?
This is what failure to support the Republican Candidate looks like.
Republicans helped put Thompson on the bench, genius.
RINOs almost always play spoiler on close votes in congress and senate. They need to run as “independents” so voters aren’t mislead. The US does have 3rd political party, it is the RINO party.
??
pls expain
He can’t explain. Danny is a Uniparty simp and doesn’t care that the ineffectual RINO losers he supports helped put Thompson on the bench. Instead, he scolds us to keep voting for them.
Right on cue, your Uniparty heroes prevent recess appointments again. Do you ever get tired of simping for the left, Danny? Of course you don’t.
This DEI waste of life must be related to dropout Whoopi Goldberg.
She’s tryin’ to make a devil out of me.
Will a Commissar Judge ever get booted out of their seat? Because without any repercussion in one of these orders they will not stop.
Judge Thompson: Hi, Donald. What’s happening? We need to talk about your TPS reports.
President Trump: Yeah. The coversheet. I know, I know. Uh, Judge Xinis talked to me about it.
Judge Thompson: Yeah. Did you get that memo?
President Trump: Yeah. I got the memo. And I understand the policy. And the problem is just that I forgot the one time. And I’ve already taken care of it so it’s not even really a problem anymore.
Judge Thompson: Ah! Yeah. It’s just we’re putting new coversheets on all the TPS reports before they go out now. So if you could go ahead and try to remember to do that from now on, that’d be great. All right!
Why doesn’t Trump just not listen to her? The courts have no rule on whether to grant or end TPS. It’s totally an executive function. Think how absurd the judge’s argument is. She says Trump can’t end it because it’s racist. Well, let’s look at it from the other end.
When the Hurricane/earthquake hit and the administration did not grant TPS, could the judge order the executive to grant TPS, because not doing so would be racist?
Of course, a judge could never order the executive to grant TPS because to not do so would be racist. Likewise, it can’t order the executive to keep TPS on the basis that to cancel it would be racist.
TPS is wholly an executive function. The judiciary has no role in it.
This language is so ridiculous, I can’t take it seriously. What happens when a rabidly partisan, idiotic judge makes a ruling only fit for a Hollywood script, and everyone laughs??? We’re about to find out.