“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
An immigrant appealed a deportation decision in light of important evidence that one of his children could be seriously harmed by his deportation.
What happened in this case?
Immigration authorities detained Alejandro Vilchis-Gomez, who was born in Mexico, and decided to deport him. He is married with three children who were born in the US, and after the initial deportation ruling, Vilchis submitted new evidence that his deportation would cause “increased and intense psychological hardship” to his six year-old son, including an evaluations from a school psychologist. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) refused to remand the case for reconsideration, stating that he had not shown that the new evidence “would likely change the decision below.”
Vilchis took his case to the Ninth Circuit. A 2-1 majority, including Trump judge Bridget Bade and George W Bush judge Milan Smith, rejected his claim and affirmed the decision to deport him in Vilchis-Gomez v Bondi in February 2026. Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Clinton, dissented.
How did Trump judge Bade and Bush judge Smith rule?
In an unsigned 2-1 decision, Trump judge Bade and Bush judge Smith rejected Vilchis’ appeal and upheld his deportation. They maintained that “substantial evidence” supported the immigration authorities’ decision.
What did Clinton nominee Wardlaw say in dissent?
Clinton nominee Kim Wardlaw strongly dissented. She explained that the BIA and the majority had committed “clear legal error” by imposing a “heavier burden” of proof on Vilchis than required by governing case law, which mandates only that someone like him show a “reasonable likelihood” that he is entitled to relief, as opposed to proving that the new evidence “would likely change” the decision below. The case should be remanded, she concluded, to “apply the correct standard in the first instance.”
Why is the result harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Bade obviously harms Alejandro Vilchis-Gomez and his family, since he will now be deported to Mexico. It also sets a bad precedent concerning family hardship and deportation, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.