A federal judge in Ohio ruled against the Trump administration Monday, citing bigoted comments President Trump and Vice President JD Vance made about immigrants.

U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley ordered the White House to unfreeze immigrants’ benefit applications, citing Trump and Vance’s “outright hostility towards immigrants, both before and after the 2024 presidential elections.” These applications include filings for work authorization and green cards from people in the U.S. from countries including Burma, Canada, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Tanzania, and Venezuela.

“Their ire appears focused on immigrants from countries in the Caribbean, South America, Africa, and Asia,” Marbley, nominated to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1997, wrote.

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    It will make it to SCOTUS where a 5-4 decision will say that it’s ok.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Amen to that. I’m so tired of the debbie downers all claiming that Democrats are jUsTaSbAd. Fuuuuuck that noise.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Most of the time they’re a right-wing extremist pretending to be a leftist or enlightened centrist. If you start probing these tankies, you see they have a blind-spot the size of Putin’s bald-spot for Chinese or Russian atrocities, and their goal is oftentimes just to try to divide-and-conquer the genuine left-leaning Americans and stop them from voting, which helps fascists.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            It’s actually impossible for two people to have different opinions about something, no matter how different their beliefs or life experiences are. There are only two reasons a person might disagree with you, either they’re being paid off by sinister forces or they’re a bot.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              I don’t exclude ignorance or poor critical-thinking skills either; though at the end of the day, that’s still enabling of fascism, too.

              Such as the case for when users ignore modifiers like, “Most of the time”

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 hours ago

                I’m not ignorant, I don’t have poor critical-thinking skills, I’m not secretly a right-wing extremist or a Russian bot. I’m just fed up with establishment politicians who act like they’re entitled to my vote while doing all sorts of horrible things and treating me with utter contempt and hostility for daring to acknowledge that Palestinians have rights.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              I’d rather not pigeon-hole all Democrats in the same.

              It’s more accurate to say: Not all democrats are left leaning; but all left-leaning individuals in government are Democrats.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          You and I have different definitions of the word, “directly,” but I think mine is at least in-line with the dictionaries just a tad bit more.

          How can Democrats directly give three Republican directly- appointed SCOTUS justices?

          Do you often blame the hero for failing to win, over the villain who made it necessary for the hero to act in the first place?

          • SaltyAmerican@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Joe Biden and Hillary’s future media manager David Brock successfully smeared the one woman that would have kept Thomas off the bench. Obama throwing his hands in the air and not fighting for a Scalia replacement and only offering up a milquetoast judge to say he tried, resulted in Gorsuch getting appointed, and RBGs arrogant hubris gave us Coney-Barrett.

            Democrats are not the hero.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              So hero-blaming it is.

              I’ll repeat: The 4 nays are ALL Democratic appointments.

              Democrats aren’t perfect; they’re just better.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 hours ago

      5-4 decision

      I wouldn’t give it more than 6-3. Isn’t there 6 bigots on the big bench, or is one a wildcat?