More from the Weaponized Bench: Judicial Activism, Lawfare, and the Erosion of U.S. Immigration Authority

THE ADMINISTRATION CUTS OFF ONE HEAD AND ANOTHER ACTIVIST JUDGE POPS UP!

Abstract: This paper examines the case of U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's decision to issue a stay on the Biden-era CHNV (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela) humanitarian parole program's termination. Through this case study, the paper analyzes the broader phenomenon of judicial activism in immigration policy, highlighting how activist judges are increasingly using procedural law to override the executive branch's constitutional authority. It argues that such interventions represent a form of "lawfare" that undermines public safety, wastes taxpayer resources, and pushes an ideological agenda at the expense of democratic governance.

I. Introduction: The Rise of Judicial Lawfare in U.S. Immigration Judicial intervention in immigration policy has expanded dramatically over the past decade, with a growing number of federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions and temporary stays to halt immigration enforcement. While judicial oversight is a legitimate feature of constitutional checks and balances, its abuse as a political weapon under the guise of procedural review constitutes "lawfare"—the use of legal systems to wage ideological war. One such example is the case of Judge Indira Talwani, who recently halted the termination of the Biden-era CHNV parole program.

II. Background: The CHNV Program and Its Scheduled Termination The CHNV program was established to offer two-year humanitarian parole for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. It was temporary by design, allowing selected migrants to reside and work in the U.S. while their status was processed. In 2025, the Biden Administration declared that the program would end as scheduled, citing its temporary nature and national immigration policy objectives.

III. Judge Talwani's Ruling: The Legal Justifications Judge Talwani blocked the program's termination, citing the following:

1. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Violations (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)): The judge claimed the administration failed to provide a "reasoned explanation" for ending the program, asserting that DHS mischaracterized lawful parolees as unlawful entrants.

2. Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment: She suggested that cutting short the parole term violated migrants' due process rights, particularly those who had begun legal proceedings or employment.

3. Irreparable Harm Standard (Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008)): The court argued that CHNV parolees would suffer severe consequences—job loss, deportation, or family separation—if the termination proceeded without judicial review.

4. Class Certification: Talwani stated her intention to classify CHNV parolees as a distinct legal class, asserting their unique circumstances warranted special protection.

IV. The Abuse of Judicial Discretion and Its Consequences While the judiciary is empowered to review executive actions, the use of temporary stays in clearly temporary programs reveals a deeper ideological motive. Judge Talwani's actions exemplify the judicial misuse of APA claims to delay lawful policy. This has several consequences:

1. Undermining the Separation of Powers: Immigration policy lies primarily with the executive. Judicial delays intrude on constitutional authority and effectively legislate from the bench.

2. Shielding Dangerous Migrants: By freezing removals, judges expose the public to potential criminal activity. If any migrant commits a violent act during this judicially extended stay, no legal mechanism holds the judge accountable. Judicial immunity prevents redress.

3. Fiscal Waste and Bureaucratic Paralysis: Federal resources are squandered defending against ideologically motivated lawsuits. Taxpayers bear the burden of prolonged court battles while enforcement agencies are stalled.

4. No Public Accountability or Shame: Unlike elected officials, federal judges face no electoral consequences. Activist judges pursuing open-border policies operate behind the shield of life tenure and media deference.

V. Political Optics vs. Legal Reality While framed in procedural terms, rulings like Talwani’s function as political resistance. They delay, obstruct, and ultimately reshape national policy. The court is not preserving justice—it is stalling a lawful decision because it conflicts with the judge's own progressive worldview.

The case parallels earlier incidents, such as:

• Regents of the Univ. of California v. DHS (DACA)

• Steinle case (San Francisco sanctuary policy resulting in murder)

Each instance reveals a pattern: courts weaponizing administrative law to frustrate enforcement while avoiding responsibility for the human cost.

VI. Conclusion: Reining in Judicial Overreach The Talwani case illustrates how unelected judges can manipulate procedural norms to impose ideological outcomes. The law must be reformed to:

• Require expedited review of APA-based immigration challenges

• Limit nationwide injunctions by district courts

• Implement mechanisms for public accountability of judges who endanger national security through stays

Judicial lawfare has become a tool to obstruct, not preserve, the rule of law. It is time to restore balance and protect the American people from the unchecked activism of the federal bench.

References

• 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (APA)

• Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008)

• Dep't of Homeland Security v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)

• INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)

• Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)

• News coverage and court transcripts, April 2025 (Reuters, NPR, WBUR, National Law Review)