“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?
Ten non-profit groups sued to stop the Trump administration from eliminating congressionally-authorized grants to help immigrants.
What happened in this case?
Pursuant to an order from Trump in early 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) froze and then terminated funding to groups authorized by Congress to help new immigrants to the US. Congress specified that the program would provide assistance for English language instruction, legal help with naturalization proceedings, and community space for immigrant activities. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society of Philadelphia, and eight other groups that had received assistance to help immigrants file suit in federal court.
A Maryland district court denied the groups’ motion for an injunction to stop DHS’ dismantling of the program. They appealed to the Fourth Circuit, where Trump judge Allison Rushing and George HW Bush judge Paul Niemeyer affirmed the court below. Biden judge Toby Heytens dissented in the ruling in Solutions in Hometown Connections v Noem.
How did Trump judge Rushing and Bush judge Niemeyer rule?
Judge Niemeyer wrote a 2-1 decision in which Judge Rushing was the deciding vote to affirm the court below and dismiss the groups’ case. They claimed that the case was similar to NIH v Public Health Association, a 5-4 shadow docket decision in which the Supreme Court approved what they asserted was a comparable action to terminate public health grants.
What did Judge Heytens say in dissent?
Judge Heytens strongly disagreed. Based on an analysis of the statutory and other language, he concluded that the ten groups had a “colorable” argument that had not been reviewed that the orders to terminate funding to them “contradicted a statutory and constitutional argument to make the funds available.”
Why is the result harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Rushing is yet another example of Trump judges upholding Trump Administration actions that harm lawful immigration and immigrants to the US. 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.