Assault on Due Process: Trump Admin Targets Courts, Cities, and Legal Norms in Immigration Crackdown

In what can only be described as a brazen, multi-front assault on fundamental legal principles, the first 100-plus days of Felonious Punk’s second term have seen a chilling escalation in the administration’s efforts to dismantle due process within the U.S. immigration system. Through legally dubious memos invoking archaic laws, coercive executive orders targeting state and local governments, and a systematic hollowing-out of the very courts meant to provide oversight, a clear picture emerges: an executive branch determined to achieve mass, accelerated deportations by any means necessary, trampling constitutional norms and judicial authority in the process. This isn’t just policy; it’s a dangerous trajectory that threatens the rule of law and potentially the rights of everyone residing in the United States.

Bypassing the Courts: The Alien Enemies Act Gambit

The audacity was laid bare in a March 14th Justice Department memo, penned by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Invoking the dust-laden Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – a wartime measure – against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, the memo brazenly claims federal officers can enter suspects’ homes without warrants and deport them with no judicial review whatsoever. This assertion of unchecked power, aimed at funneling individuals to prisons in El Salvador, represents a staggering contempt for the Fourth Amendment and basic legal oversight.  

Thankfully, the judiciary swiftly pushed back. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that even those detained under the AEA retain due process rights, including the ability to challenge their imprisonment via habeas corpus. Federal courts echoed this, rejecting the administration’s outrageous claim of immunity from judicial review. As Reagan-appointed Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson cuttingly wrote, the government’s position “should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.” Yet, astonishingly, the DOJ has reportedly failed to confirm if this legally rebuked guidance has even been rescinded.  

Coercing Compliance: The Executive Order Squeeze on States & Cities

While claiming extraordinary federal power on one front, the administration simultaneously moved to bully states and cities into compliance via two executive orders signed on April 28th. One, cynically titled “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” directs the publication of lists naming “sanctuary” jurisdictions and threatens them with the loss of federal funding and even criminal investigation for “obstructing” federal enforcement, framing local policy choices as a “lawless insurrection.” It specifically targets policies like offering in-state tuition to undocumented students.  

The other EO, “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement,” offers the carrot alongside the stick: promising excess military gear and federally-backed legal aid to local police forces willing to toe the federal line. This creates a coercive dynamic, rewarding compliance and punishing dissent, effectively attempting to federalize local police forces for immigration purposes while undermining local autonomy and intensifying existing legal battles over sanctuary policies.  

Hollowing Out the System: Dismantling Due Process from Within

Perhaps most insidiously, alongside these external power plays, the administration has been systematically dismantling the internal mechanisms designed to provide due process, as detailed by NPR. Dozens of experienced immigration judges have been fired, and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which reviews their decisions, has been shrunk, inevitably slowing appeals and potentially rubber-stamping removals.  

Crucially, federal funding for legal aid, particularly for unaccompanied children who are least equipped to navigate the complex system alone, has been slashed. Groups like the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project, already handling over 700 child cases, reported being unable to take more due to these cuts. This occurs alongside administration figures openly questioning the need for due process itself – Punk claiming “you can’t have a trial for all,” VP Fuxacouch calling it a “fake legal process,” and Stephen Miller declaring “The judicial process is for Americans. Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens.” This rhetoric, coupled with pressure on lawyers and even signs in court waiting rooms urging immigrants to “self-deport,” aims to eliminate fairness from the equation entirely. As former immigration judge Ashley Tabaddor warned, removing notice and the opportunity to respond is “absolute lawlessness.”  

Errors, Fear, and the Slippery Slope

The consequences of this assault are not theoretical. The wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a mega-prison in El Salvador, admitted by the administration as an “administrative error,” is a terrifying example of what happens when safeguards are removed. Within this deliberately crippled system, the risk of catastrophic errors skyrockets, especially for the most vulnerable, including children denied legal counsel who may have valid claims for asylum or protection utterly ignored in the rush to deport.

The administration’s insistence that it is merely enforcing the law rings hollow against the backdrop of these actions and the unanimous pushback from the Supreme Court. Experts explicitly warn of the “slippery slope” here. As Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute noted, while attacking due process for unpopular immigrants might be “politically a good slogan,” the Constitution’s due process protections (5th and 14th Amendments) apply to “persons,” not just citizens. Eroding these rights for one group sets a precedent that history shows can all too easily be expanded to others, including lawful permanent residents and potentially even U.S. citizens.  

A System Under Siege, A Principle Endangered

The first 100+ days of Punk’s second term reveal a coherent, alarming strategy: bypass judicial review where possible (AEA), coerce state and local compliance where needed (EOs), and cripple the internal system meant to ensure fairness (judge firings, legal aid cuts). This multi-front attack on due process, conducted under infuriatingly false claims of mere law enforcement, represents a profound challenge to American constitutional norms.

The potential for political blowback, as witnessed recently in Canada, where similar anti-immigrant and nationalist rhetoric arguably backfired spectacularly, seems lost on an administration focused solely on its enforcement goals. But the immediate damage is to the integrity of the justice system and the fundamental principle that even in immigration matters, the government is not above the law. The question facing Americans now is how much erosion they are willing to tolerate before the bedrock of due process itself crumbles.