The Trump administration took a hit on Friday, enduring two notable legal defeats in just a matter of hours.
A judge from California ruled that a Syrian man, who had been under deportation orders, should be released. At the same time, a federal judge in Rhode Island blocked new restrictions that were supposed to be imposed on domestic violence funding, in line with the president’s campaigns against what he terms “gender ideology.”
Kyle Cheney, a legal reporter from Politico, shared these developments on his X account.
Newsweek reached out to officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice over the weekend, seeking their input on these legal battles.
The Significance of This Situation
With the Republicans currently holding power in both congressional chambers and in the White House, the judiciary has emerged as a formidable barrier to the Trump administration’s policy initiatives.
There have been several high-profile legal setbacks for the administration, including courts overturning punitive measures that Trump attempted to implement against law firms dealing with his legal issues, as well as halting efforts to deny legal protections to numerous Haitian migrants and lifting sanctions aimed at employees of the International Criminal Court.
The Case of Salam Maklad
Pursuant to the ruling by Judge Jennifer Thurston from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Salam Maklad, a Syrian citizen and a member of the Druze faith, was to be released. She had entered the U.S. in 2002 without valid travel documents and had sought asylum, as per court records accessed by Newsweek.
Maklad later married an individual who had been granted asylum, which her legal advisors argued qualified her for legal residency.
On July 9, she found herself detained by ICE officials during what she thought was a routine “check-in,” but ended up caught in “expedited removal proceedings” aiming for her deportation.
During the proceedings, Judge Thurston emphasized that Maklad posed no criminal threat and was not considered a risk of flight. The judge concluded that the “balance of equities and public interest favored releasing Ms. Maklad.” Hence, she mandated that authorities refrain from arresting her again without proper constitutional procedures involving prior notice of any circumstances justifying further action and a timely bond hearing.
Changes to Domestic Violence Funding
In the same vein, Senior District Judge William Smith from Rhode Island indicated that the Trump administration couldn’t enforce new restrictions on the funds related to the Violence Against Women Act as stipulated by Executive Order 14168, which aimed to counter “gender ideology extremism.”
This funding is managed by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women.
According to Trump’s directive, a person’s sex is to be recognized as a definitive biological attribute, and the federal government is called to prioritize legal actions connected to this understanding.
Subsequent adjustments made by the Office on Violence Against Women included defining certain actions pertaining to “gender ideology” as outside the permissible scope for funded activities, a detail that emerged in court proceedings from around May 2025.
Seventeen nonprofit organizations challenged this order, voicing that adhering to the administration’s position would hinder their capacity to support domestic violence victims.
Judge Smith sided with these nonprofits, asserting that the new mandates from the Trump administration could greatly disrupt essential services for victims of domestic and sexual abuse.
Reactions to the Judgments
In her verdict, Judge Thurston highlighted: “Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Ms. Maklad without following constitutional protections, which must include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice concerning the circumstances that led to her possible arrest, and a timely bond hearing.”
Similarly, Judge Smith noted: “On one hand, denying preliminary relief could subject the Coalitions to immediate irreparable harm from these conditions. Conversely, granting the relief means that the Office will revert to processing grant requests as per usual.”
Looking Ahead
It remains uncertain whether the Trump administration will choose to contest either of these rulings.
