Andy Schlafly joined the rest of WorldNetDaily in raging against judges who rule against President Trump in his Feb. 27 column:
Liberal judges have found a tool for browbeating Trump’s attorneys at the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the issue of detaining illegal aliens. Akin to an unpleasant toy in the hands of idle children, the legal hammer of a “show cause” order is being overused by judges opposed to Trump’s crackdown on illegal aliens.
In the last six months, “show cause” orders have emanated from dozens of judges unhappy with how the Trump Administration detains illegal aliens without bail. Leftist judges are just fine with denying bail to Trump supporters accused of a crime, as done to hundreds of J6-ers in order to imprison them in the D.C. Gulag without a trial, and yet Democrat-appointed judges object to detaining illegal aliens without bail.
Trump’s policy is a sensible one: anyone who is in the United States unlawfully is not entitled to be released on bail from their detention. Many might “jump bail” never to be caught again, and there is no legitimate defense to being unlawfully in our country.
[…]This is not a civil rights issue, any more than removing someone from trespassing on private property would be a civil rights issue. Their very presence in defiant trespass is unlawful and indefensible; releasing them on bail would simply facilitate continuation of the very crime itself.
Yet mostly Democrat-appointed federal district judges are demanding that DOJ attorneys “show cause,” which means explain in sworn statements, why they should not be held in contempt for implementing Trump’s policy. No federal judge can hold President Trump in contempt, so instead they are seeking to make an example of junior attorneys within the DOJ.
Weird how Schlafly thinks Capitol rioters were in a “gulag,” but that description is missing for undocumented immigrants jailed under similar conditions. Schlafly then raged against a specific judge for not ruling Trump’s way:
Despite the clarity of the law and President Trump’s sensible policy against bail for illegal aliens, Biden-appointed Judge Sunshine Sykes in Los Angeles issued on Feb. 18 a one-sided ruling against Trump’s policy. Judge Sykes is the first Navajo Nation citizen to become a federal judge, and she was confirmed by Democrats in a narrow, nearly party-line vote of only 51–45 less than four years ago.
Judge Sykes held in favor of Plaintiff Lazaro Maldonado Bautista, who is not an American citizen and yet has lived in Los Angeles for roughly four years. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Bautista on June 6, 2025, after deciding that he is here illegally, and denied Bautista release on bond.
Bautista was detained by DHS and ICE at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in Adelanto, California. His request for a bond redetermination hearing was denied by an immigration judge.
Judge Sykes complained that Bautista “is but one of hundreds, if not thousands, of noncitizens with no criminal background that have been arrested and detained by the Government for being in the country without admission.” She relied on Justice Kennedy’s 5-3 decision in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 407 (2012) – which should be overturned – that generally “it is not a crime for a removable [illegal alien] to remain present in the United States.”
The orders by this solitary Biden-appointed, Los Angeles-based judge against the Trump Administration are breathtakingly broad and burdensome, and are contrary to the outcome of the last presidential election.
Schlafly concluded by raging:
The American people voted in the last presidential election against allowing illegal aliens to roam freely in our country despite typically having broken the law in coming and staying here. This sweeping ruling by one Biden-appointed judge in Los Angeles, along with similar decisions rendered by dozens of additional Democrat-appointed judges, constitute judicial activism which the Supreme Court should swiftly shut down.
If “dozens” of judges are making similar rulings, it can’t possibly be “judicial activism” — it’s a reasonable interpretation of the law.