A California federal judge’s ruling on the scope of the Trump administration‘s ability to conduct warrantless arrests for illegal immigrants fueled outrage and confusion online and among lawmakers and pundits, though its actual scope is more limited than initially thought.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston, an appointee of former President Joe Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction Monday restricting Border Patrol agents in California’s eastern district in stopping and arresting suspected illegal immigrants.
“Judge Thurston … is trying to stop ICE agents from arresting illegal immigrants who are coming across the border,” conservative CNN pundit Scott Jennings said Wednesday afternoon, adding that he thinks the administration should “just ignore” her order.
🚨District court judge issued one of the most egregious immigration rulings I’ve ever seen.
This is a judicial coup. This is a ruling that President Trump should IGNORE. It will not stand. pic.twitter.com/avxZQr5MFC
— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) April 30, 2025
Republican lawmakers also blasted the ruling. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) called it baffling, saying, “I cannot fathom the justification for a judicial order prohibiting the Border Patrol from arresting illegal aliens without a warrant.”
Federal judge orders Border Patrol *not* to arrest illegal aliens without a warrant—even though federal law specifically authorizes them to do so
My fellow Americans, we have a problem
It couldn’t be more serious
pic.twitter.com/V57MTUdDeH https://t.co/t4744jFyj3— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) April 30, 2025
The ruling, however, does not block the Department of Homeland Security from conducting warrantless arrests outright; it seeks to reaffirm existing legal standards that agents must already follow: having “reasonable suspicion” before stopping an individual and “probable cause” they may flee before a warrant is obtained.
“Border Patrol is enjoined from conducting detentive stops … unless, pre-stop, the detaining agent has reasonable suspicion that the person … is a noncitizen who is present … in violation of U.S. immigration law,” Thurston’s order states.
The judge, however, did set certain parameters that critics might see as overly burdensome on DHS’s obligations, such as requiring documentation of such stops every 60 days.
Margot Cleveland, of counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance and a senior legal reporter at the Federalist, suggested in a post on X that Thurston’s order “is being misreported.”
“Lots of screaming is merited by coup by court, but this decision isn’t one meriting meltdown,” Cleveland wrote. She added, though, that the added record-keeping requirement could be beyond the court’s authority.
The injunction is also limited to California’s eastern district, which comprises much of the state’s farmland, and does not affect immigration enforcement practices in other border states.
The Washington Examiner sought clarification from DHS on Wednesday as to how the agency is interpreting the judge’s decision but did not immediately receive a response.
FEDERAL JUDGE ORDER RELEASE OF DETAINED PRO-PALESTINIAN COLUMBIA STUDENT MOHSEN MADAWI
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, responding to a separate immigration-related decision earlier on Wednesday, said that the Trump administration “is committed to restoring the rule of law to our immigration system.”
“No judge, not this one or any other, is going to stop us from doing that,” McLaughlin said in response to a Vermont judge who released Mohsen Mahdawi, a pro-Palestinian advocate and permanent resident, weeks after DHS arrested him for engaging in activities the agency contends posed “adverse foreign policy consequences.”
