We’re hearing a lot this week about how the DOJ is going to take over a billion dollars of our tax money and give it to those whose feelings were, like, really hurt when they got in trouble just for doing a little insurrection and maybe pooping on Nancy Pelosi’s desk. So you know what we need? We need a palate cleanser. And, thankfully, the state of Tennessee has deigned to provide us with one. Rejoice!
Officials in the state will have to pay 61-year-old retired police officer Larry Bushart $835,000 in restitution after having imprisoned him for 37 days over a meme he shared to Facebook following the death of Charlie Kirk — which caused him to lose his job and miss both his wedding anniversary and the birth of his granddaughter.
Bushart was arrested back in September after he refused to take down a bunch of posts disparaging Kirk after his assassination, specifically over one that actually just criticized Donald Trump. Because, reportedly, people in his community thought it meant he was threatening to shoot up a school, as I guess they are not very good at reading comprehension.
The post he shared in the Perry County, Tennessee, community Facebook page was a meme that existed long before Kirk was assassinated and featured a picture of Donald Trump along the famous words of comfort he shared after the 2024 school shooting in Perry, Iowa: “We have to get over it.”
Yes, just one day after 17-year-old Dylan Butler shot eight people, injuring six and ultimately killing two (a sixth-grader died the day of, the school principal died 10 days later from his injuries), Donald Trump said to Iowans at a campaign event in Sioux Center, “It’s just horrible — so surprising to see it here. But we have to get over it. We have to move forward.”
You know, because godforbid we start thinking that gun control might be a good idea.
Anyway, the aforementioned not-very-good-at-reading-comprehension people saw the meme and thought that this was Larry Bushart threatening a mass shooting at Perry High School in Tennessee. Or at least claimed that they did.
Via The Tennessean:
Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems told The Tennessean in September that participants on the page were planning to host a Charlie Kirk vigil in Linden, Tennessee on Sept. 23.
Bushart posted multiple photos in the comments referencing Charlie Kirk’s death, which Weems called “hate memes,” but stated were “not against the law and would be recognized as free speech.” […]
Weems said Bushart posted the picture “to indicate or make the audience think it was referencing our Perry High School.”
“This led teachers, parents and students to conclude he was talking about a hypothetical shooting at our school,” he said. “Numerous reached out in concern.”
According to the statement, “investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community.”
Yeah, I’m pretty certain that was not at all the point of posting that meme. It seems fairly clear that Bushart had the same reason for sharing it as the millions of other people who shared it that week had — to point out how very callous Trump has been when people who are not his rabid supporters are killed. Nevertheless, Bushart was arrested, held on $2 million bail and imprisoned for over a month.
Weirdly enough, however, the Constitution does not actually have any kind of clauses specifying that the First Amendment can be thrown out the window in cases involving the hurting of Republican feelings, so now the officials involved with his arrest have to pay.
“It’s in times of turmoil and heightened tensions that our national commitment to free speech is tested the most,” said Bushart’s attorney, Cary Davis of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “When government officials fail that test, the Constitution exists to hold them accountable. Our hope is that Larry’s settlement sends a message to law enforcement across the country: Respect the First Amendment today, or be prepared to pay the price tomorrow.”
Yes, and while many conservatives believe that the First Amendment only exists to keep other people from calling them assholes on social media or kicking them off social media sites for being assholes, it’s actually meant to keep the government from punishing people for speech — which is why these government officials now owe Larry Bushart almost one million dollars. Whoops!
Barney Frank, a liberal congressman and trailblazer for gay rights, dies. He was 86.
By STEVEN SLOAN
WASHINGTON (AP) — Barney Frank, the longtime Democratic congressman and leading liberal who brought new visibility to gay rights and crafted the most significant reforms to the financial system in a generation, has died. He was 86.
Frank died late Tuesday, according to Jim Segel, Frank’s former campaign manager and close friend.
After representing broad swaths of Boston’s suburbs in Congress for 32 years, Frank and his husband moved to Ogunquit, Maine. He entered hospice there in April with congestive heart failure and is survived by his husband, Jim Ready, and sisters, the longtime Democratic strategist Ann Lewis and Doris Breay, along with brother David Frank.
A self-described “left-handed gay Jew,” Frank was known for his acerbic wit, combative style and focus on marginalized communities. He represented the party’s left wing while keeping close with Democratic leaders who sometimes frustrated progressives.
He is best known as a pioneer for LGBT rights. After decades of grappling with his sexuality, he publicly came out as gay in 1987, the first member of Congress to do so voluntarily. With his 2012 marriage to Ready, he became the first incumbent lawmaker on Capitol Hill to marry someone of the same sex.
And why judges should never be elected, but should be nominated by those who practice law, then confirmed by elected legislators and governors. All should be public so we the people know what and when it’s happening. When judges have to run for the bench, politics overtakes and minimizes law, tainting decisions.
Judge Carl Folsom III // Linkedin
This weekend, a Kansas judge issued a scathing 117-page rebuke of the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth—and in doing so, methodically dismantled the case against that care. In his ruling, Judge Carl Folsom III worked through the testimony of the state’s witnesses one by one, finding that its anti-transgender “experts”—routinely paraded by groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, SEGM, and Genspect—offered opinions built on “cherry-picked information, conjecture, and research taken out of context,” and granting their testimony little to no weight. He then laid out 349 individual findings of fact, drawn from scientific evidence and the testimony of credible medical experts, documenting the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care. He ultimately found that the ban likely violates the Kansas Constitution—which guarantees broader protections than its federal counterpart. That distinction matters enormously: because the ruling rests on state constitutional grounds, it is largely insulated from the U.S. Supreme Court and its decision in Skrmetti, which closed the federal courthouse door to these challenges but left the state one wide open.
“Allowing a transgender adolescent with gender dysphoria to experience their endogenous puberty when puberty blockers are medically indicated according to the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline is highly likely to result in irreversible physical changes that create enormous short- and long-term distress and gender dysphoria,” Folsom wrote. “Thus, there was substantial evidence that S.B. 63 not only fails to protect minors, but also endangers them, by prohibiting the use of GnRH agonists when medically indicated.”
Before weighing the evidence, the judge first had to determine who could credibly be considered an expert. Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach brought forward a litany of anti-trans witnesses familiar from litigation defending these bans. Among them was James Cantor, a Toronto psychologist who has built a career testifying for states defending care bans despite no clinical experience treating transgender minors—and who was once quietly dropped from a Florida Board of Medicine hearing after it emerged he had served on the advisory council of the Prostasia Foundation, a group that has worked to destigmatize pedophilia. Folsom wrote that Cantor “has not conducted any original scientific research on the efficacy or safety of gender dysphoria treatments,” and noted he is not licensed to treat anyone under 16 and has never diagnosed a minor with gender dysphoria. The judge then catalogued a record of self-contradiction: Cantor “stated that ‘peer-review is the line between acceptable and not’ but himself relied on non-peer reviewed sources,” cited systematic reviews while ignoring that “the authors of those reviews stated that their work should not be used to prevent the provision of gender-affirming medical care,” and “makes several statements which have no scientific support,” including that gender dysphoria might be a misdiagnosis of borderline personality disorder. “The Court gives Dr. Cantor’s testimony little weight,” Folsom concluded.
The judge turned next to Farr Curlin, a Duke University doctor and theologian who was an author of the Trump administration’s HHS report on pediatric gender dysphoria—a document authored anonymously by a roster of hate-group affiliates and career anti-trans activists, and which deadnames Christine Jorgensen, one of the first Americans to get gender affirming surgery. Curlin, Folsom noted, “is not a pediatrician, nor is he a psychiatrist or endocrinologist,” and “has never treated anyone for gender dysphoria.” Curlin testified that gender-affirming care is “ethically problematic”—but under questioning, the breadth of what Curlin considers unethical became clear. He believes that prescribing birth control for contraception is also “ethically problematic,” because “blocking the capacity for reproduction seems contrary to the purposes of health.” He believes in vitro fertilization is “ethically problematic” as well. He testified that when gender-affirming care reduces fertility, it “prevents the realization of the basic good of marriage, since sexual capacities make possible the one flesh union of marriage.” By his own admission, Folsom noted, Curlin’s views are “radically counter to current medical orthodoxy.” The judge found his opinions “appear motivated by his personal views as opposed to a methodology applicable in the field of medical ethics,” and gave his testimony “little-to-no weight.”
The judge also had pointed words for the state’s roster of prominent anti-trans activists. Chloe Cole, the country’s most prominent anti-trans detransitioner, testified about receiving care as a minor in California—but Folsom noted that Cole “admittedly did not receive care in Kansas,” and that the plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Angela Turpin testified the care Cole described “would not have occurred in Kansas” and would have been inconsistent with the clinical guidelines Kansas providers actually follow. Her testimony was given “less weight.” Corinna Cohn, another anti-trans detransitioner who has testified for care bans across the country and who has publicly denied that transgender people existed before 1939 or were victims of the Holocaust, did not appear at the hearing at all. The judge noted that Cohn’s affidavit described “care accessed as an adult” and treatment “in Wisconsin”—nothing to do with minors, or with Kansas—and gave it “little weight.” And then there was Jamie Reed, the self-styled “whistleblower” who built a national profile on lurid, largely unsubstantiated accusations against a St. Louis gender clinic and who has gone on Fox News to describe being transgender as a delusion. Reed also did not testify and could not be cross-examined. Folsom gave her affidavit “little weight,” and had scathing remarks towards her lack of expertise:
“The Court gives thus Jamie Reed’s affidavit little weight, given that she is not a medical provider or mental-health professional. In addition, her affidavit primarily addresses her experiences with a clinic operating outside of Kansas—thus, it does not rebut or refute the credible, uncontroverted testimony about clinical practice within the state of Kansas,” read the order.
Folsom then turned to set the record straight on the care banned by Kansas. Working through the testimony of the credible medical experts, he set out 349 separate numbered findings of fact, each documenting some component of what the science actually shows about gender-affirming care. Among them: that “the currently available body of medical research, as a whole, shows that gender-affirming medical care is effective at improving mental-health outcomes for adolescents with gender dysphoria,” supported by “over 20 scientific studies” finding the treatments “effective at alleviating gender dysphoria and improving a variety of mental-health outcomes, including anxiety, depression, and suicidality.” Folsom found that “for many adolescents, gender-affirming medical care provides significant relief from gender dysphoria and decreases depression, anxiety, suicidality, and thoughts of self-harm.” On the question of regret, the talking point most relied upon by the law’s defenders, the court found, based on the Kansas clinic’s own long-term follow-up data, that 99.2% of patients who received gender-affirming care “continue to identify as transgender into adulthood,” and that of the remaining 0.8%, “most did not regret the medical treatment they received.”
Folsom reserved some of his sharpest fact-finding for the Cass Review and claims over European care. The state’s experts pointed to systematic reviews from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway as “proof” the science had turned. Folsom found otherwise. “None of these systematic reviews recommend categorically banning gender-affirming medical care for adolescents,” he wrote, and “the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway have not categorically prohibited gender-affirming medical care for minors”—as Kansas had. On the Cass Review specifically, Folsom found that its authors “changed their methodology from the methodology they said they would use in their preregistration, which is a deviation from standard academic publishing practices designed to minimize bias,” and “used idiosyncratic standards in scoring and thus excluded studies that had made important contributions to the field.” Far from recommending a ban, the court found, the Cass Report “reaches conclusions that are similar to those in the Endocrine Society Guideline and WPATH Standards of Care” and “concludes that there are young people who absolutely benefit from gender-affirming care.” On Germany, the state had the facts backwards: Folsom found that “Germany’s recent guideline endorses the provision of gender-affirming medical care”—a reference to the 2025 guidelines from 26 medical organizations across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the largest European medical consensus on transgender youth care ever produced.
The judge’s ruling rested on the Kansas constitution. Folsom found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the claim that SB 63 violates the fundamental right of parents, guaranteed by Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, to make medical decisions for their children. Section 1, he wrote, quoting the Kansas Supreme Court, “protects the core right of personal autonomy—which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination” and “allows Kansans to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, their health, their family formation, and their family life.” Because SB 63 strips parents of that right, Folsom applied strict scrutiny, the most demanding standard in constitutional law, and found the state had failed to meet it. That reasoning was used recently before in Kansas politics for another issue. The same Section is what protects abortion rights in the state. In previous abortion-related decisions, the Kansas Supreme Court held that Section 1 secures “an inalienable natural right of personal autonomy”—language the court used to strike down abortion restrictions, and that Kansas voters chose to keep in 2022 when they rejected a constitutional amendment that would have stripped it away.
For now, gender-affirming care is legal again in Kansas. The injunction is temporary, blocking SB 63 while the case is litigated, and Attorney General Kris Kobach has said he will appeal, calling the ruling “a stark example of judicial activism.” But the appeal faces a structural problem. Because the decision rests entirely on the Kansas Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling in Skrmetti have no power to disturb it—a state’s highest court is the final word on its own constitution. And the Kansas Supreme Court, where the case is ultimately likely to land, has five of seven justices appointed by Democratic governors and has repeatedly upheld the same Section 1 personal-autonomy right that Folsom relied on here.
because his voters would be better off. It’s good he’s at least finishing less weakly.
Senate advances bill aimed at ending Iran war as Cassidy, after primary loss, flips to support it
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate advanced legislation Tuesday that seeks to force President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Iran war, as a growing number of Republicans defied the president’s wishes.
Since Trump ordered the attack on Iran at the end of February, Democrats have forced repeated votes on war powers resolutions that would require him to either gain congressional approval for the war or withdraw troops. Republicans had been able to muster the votes to reject those proposals, but Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy — fresh off a primary election loss in which Trump endorsed his opponent — switched sides to deliver a crucial vote to pass the legislation.
The 50-47 vote tally demonstrated the small but crucial number of Republicans voting to halt the war with Iran. The legislation will get a vote on final passage, but the timing was not immediately clear.
Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had all previously voted for similar war powers resolutions and did so again Tuesday. Cassidy voted for the legislation for the first time.
After his primary election loss last week, Cassidy returned to Washington saying that he was proud of his work to uphold the Constitution and would carefully consider how he would vote on several priorities of the Trump administration.
Picking on Minority Leader Jeffries who truly ought to be able to say a little more is fine, but it’s actually Republicans who need to step up, as they have the power and ability to put things on the floor for action.
This is a great song all on its own as a song!
Coming this week:
Looks like the law firms win
Last week I flagged that oral argument was set in the D.C. Circuit for this past Thursday in the combined challenges filed by four law firms against Trump’s executive orders seeking to keep them from conducting much of their business. All four firms won in the lower courts. Based on the panel’s reception, they seem on track to do it again.
These cases are highly significant because they go to the heart of a major abuse of executive power: Trump’s insistence that he has the ability to put entities that oppose him out of business. Former Solicitor General for George W. Bush, Paul Clement, representing the firms, argued that Trump’s executive orders “run afoul of the better part of the Bill of Rights.” Not just one or two provisions, mind you, but “the better part.” He argued that they threaten the right to counsel, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.
Clement explained, “The executive orders here strike at the heart of the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to zealously represent their clients. Lawyers cannot zealously represent their clients while walking on eggshells for fear of reprisals; thus, the executive orders strike at the heart of the rule of law and the zealous representation on which the judiciary and the adversary process depend.” That seems entirely clear. It could even be possible that firms might avoid representing certain clients—one of Trump’s early attacks was on Covington and Burling, a D.C. firm that gave advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel during the Biden administration who oversaw the two prosecutions of Donald Trump.
Clement also explained the headlock Trump had put firms in: “I either keep my security clearance, or I can sue the Trump administration, not both.” For many defense firms, the ability to obtain a security clearance is essential to doing certain types of work. Trump’s orders purported to remove those clearances for lawyers at firms that ran afoul of him. He also tried to suspend active government contracts and prevent attorneys who worked at the interdicted firms from entering government buildings, including federal courthouses. As we discussed here, it was always going to be a nonstarter because the orders, if permitted to go into effect, would allow a president to pick and choose which attorneys could continue to make a living and put ones he didn’t like out of business.
During argument, the panel seemed unpersuaded that the executive orders were discretionary national security decisions made by a president that aren’t subject to review by the courts. If the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, Trump will undoubtedly argue that the district judges who first considered the case were biased. Assuming Trump loses at the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court could take the case on appeal, but is not obligated to. For instance, Judge Richard Leon, one of first district judges to consider a law firm executive order case, is also the judge who issued a preliminary injunction halting construction of Trump’s ballroom, finding that the president is the “steward” of the White House and not the “owner,” and that Trump had no statutory authority to proceed, absent authorization from Congress. So prepare yourself for meritless arguments about judicial bias if Trump suffers a loss here. There is no way of predicting how long it will take the court to rule, and the administration is enjoined from putting the orders into effect while the cases are being litigated.
Closing the loop on mifepristone
With only two justices, predictably, Thomas and Alito, writing in dissent, the Supreme Court has prevented Louisiana’s law, which would make mifepristone unavailable via telehealth, from going into effect while the litigation moves forward.
It’s not skeptical to question whether this happened because the Court is well aware of the risk of agitating voters in advance of the midterm elections.
Trump is hyperfocused on trying to salvage the November election despite his sinking performance in the polls.
We always knew that, backed into a corner, Trump would become ever more willing to damage democracy to save himself. It’s on.
NOTUS is reporting that meetings are being held, out of the public eye, between the White House, DOJ, DHS, and the Postal Service to try and interfere with the election. The goal seems to be building a national voter database that can then be used to determine who can and can’t vote—which is up to the individual states—and implement Trump’s order that the Post Office should interfere with mailing ballots.
The report in NOTUS included comments from an unidentified White House staffer speaking on background, who declined to acknowledge that the conversations were taking place, but did say that “it is standard process for administration officials to coordinate on implementing President Trump’s executive orders. We do not comment on private meetings that may or may not have happened.” That’s as good as a yes.
Trump’s executive order directing USPS to interfere in state-run elections is under challenge in court. At a hearing last week, DOJ argued that the court can’t act because the issue being raised is an “abstract legal question unless and until the Postal Service actually issues a rule that injures the plaintiffs and it does so only because it was directed to by the president — rather than, for example, as an exercise of the agency’s own independent judgment.” Judge Carl Nichols seemed inclined to buy that argument at one point in the hearing, asking how there could be irreparable injury, which he must find before he can enjoin the executive order, when no action has been taken as of yet. But at other points in the hearing, he pushed the government on the constitutionality of the president’s executive order.
We’ll watch carefully for a forthcoming ruling in this case, which will tell us a lot about whether the courts will entertain presidential interference in each state’s administration of its own election. But the White House is making its position clear.
Stephen Miller, who it’s always worth noting is not a lawyer and doesn’t seem to appreciate what the Constitution says, seems to be continuing to look for a new way to militarize the country for reasons that don’t hold water in advance of the election. We’ll take up the issue of the illegality of sending federal troops or federal agents to the polls first breather we get.
Also …
On Wednesday, the state of Tennessee has a court date to defend itself against the NAACP’s allegations that it cannot, without violating state law, redraw its voting maps this late in the decade.
On Thursday, SCOTUS will be issuing more opinions.
By Friday, the Government has to produce discovery to the defendants in the Minnesota church protest case against Don Lemon and individual protestors who were indicted for violating the FACE Act. A judge ruled that heavily redacted discovery that prevents the defendants from identifying witnesses, including members of law enforcement, so they can prepare their cases violates the law. He has given the government until Friday to rectify its errors and “produce discovery consistent with its Rule 16(a) obligations, unredacted as to all victim and witness names, addresses, and telephone numbers; as well as fully unredacted as to law enforcement PII [personally identifiable information]” to every defendant who has agreed to abide by a protective order preventing its public dissemination. The government’s case has been widely viewed as likely violating the First Amendment from the outset.
Next up on the list of bad cabinet secretaries
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins is being sued for violating employees’ right to be free from establishment of religion by the government. She’s been proselytizing in emails to the captive audience that is her workforce.
I recall once handling a case where a public employee was being subject to far less overt religious commentary, and the government agency immediately conceded error and fired the offender. This case is even more clear. Government employees are not disciples of Christ.
But don’t hold your breath for the president to fire her. This was a weekend characterized by a full-scale display of support for Christianity being promoted by the White House. The administration held a “Rededicate 250,” which many observers, both approvingly and disapprovingly, referred to as a Christian religious service featuring high-ranking government officials on the National Mall.
Rededicate 250 was “a White House-backed prayer festival dedicated to America’s Christian roots.” Trump gave a video speech. Speaker Mike Johnson, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were present, standing with evangelical leaders on the stage. Johnson told the crowd, “Our founders boldly proclaim that our rights do not derive from the government. They come from you, our Creator and Heavenly Father.”
Podcaster Brian Allen posted this snippet from MAGA radio host Eric Metaxas’ speech at the federally funded prayer event on the National Mall today: “It’s hard to believe that it would take two centuries for the Lord to raise up a great man to bring that ballroom finally to stand where it needs to stand. It’s extraordinary. We only had to wait two hundred years.”
As Allen put it, Metazas “told a crowd of thousands of Christians that God spent two centuries waiting to raise up Donald Trump — to build a ballroom.” The crowd responded by cheering.
The only way to overcome this sort of thing, a clear violation of the Constitution, is with a relentless commitment to telling the truth and sharing it widely. We know from Trump’s poll numbers that some of it is breaking through. The utter lunacy of the Christian God wanting a ballroom is something to ask people to stop, and instead of just following like sheep, spend a moment thinking about.
More Kleptocracy
Bloomberg is reporting that Trump’s disclosure forms for the first quarter of 2026 show that he made 3,600 Stock trades, and that they are worth as much as $750 Million (the reporting is done in bands, so it’s impossible to determine the exact amount from the forms). Former Undersecretary of State Rick Stengel pointed out that Bush and Clinton kept their assets in a blind trust and neither Obama nor Biden traded stocks or bonds while in office.
“3,700 trades,” Stengel tweeted, “is probably more than all the trades of all the presidents until now. And he is trading stocks that are affected by his decisions. A walking conflict of interest, at the least, and perhaps insider trading. Just as members of Congress should not be able to trade stocks, so too the president.” Stock trades aren’t official acts; they’re clearly personal ones. Stengel has certainly identified reasons that merit a closer look at these trades.
So, lots happening this week. We’ll be here through everything as we head into the Memorial Day weekend, trying to make it make sense. I’m grateful to all of you who spend part of your week here with me, thinking carefully about the law, democracy, and where we go from here. Thank you for being a part of Civil Discourse.
We’re in this together,
Joyce
WASHINGTON D.C. —Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and lead author of the Dream Act, and Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), joined immigration experts and advocates at a press conference and spotlight forum to highlight examples and implications of the growing threats to Dreamers, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) processing delays and detention and deportation concerns.
At the press conference, speakers highlighted examples of DACA recipients being unable to work and live safely in the United States due to the Trump Administration’s unjustified processing delays on their renewal applications, including a San Francisco-based DACA recipient who is at risk of losing her job. Held directly before the DACA spotlight forum, Padilla and his Democratic colleagues uplifted Dreamers’ stories and called attention to the devastating impact of unnecessary processing delays. Padilla emphasized the importance of passing the Dream Act and the urgent need for a permanent legislative fix that creates a pathway to citizenship to support our Dreamers who significantly contribute to our communities and economy.
“We hear cases of both DACA participants, and Dreamers more broadly, being detained and deported. Many DACA recipients just simply waiting for what used to be, and should be, a routine renewal of their status,” said Senator Padilla. “We’ve heard reports of the Justice Department’s handpicked panel of judges saying that DACA protections, ‘don’t actually protect dreamers from deportation.’ Why the change? This is the entire point of the DACA program – to recognize that young people who are contributing to our country and have no criminal record, who were brough here as children, should not be deported. They deserve protections.”
“Since the beginning of this year, my office alone has seen an increase in requests for help from hundreds of people dealing with delays in getting their renewals and bureaucratic chaos. Let me tell you about one woman named Ariel – a nurse in San Francisco who has lived in the United States since she was just two years old,” continued Padilla. “Ariel filed her renewal paperwork at the beginning of the year, 135 days before her expiration date. She followed every rule. She did everything she was supposed to do just like she always does, every two years like clockwork. But Ariel’s DACA status expired in April, and to this day her renewal status still hasn’t been processed. That’s not her fault! Yet she’s about to lose her job caring for sick people and the promotion she was working towards, because of the failures and cruelty of the Trump Administration. And here’s the thing that they don’t seem to understand in the gilded Oval Office: it’s not just Dreamers who are hurting because of these actions. It’s all of us.”
Following the press conference, Padilla and his Democratic colleagues participated in a spotlight forum on protecting Dreamers, hosted by Senator Durbin, to further highlight the contributions of DACA recipients and Dreamers in our communities, the threats that the Trump Administration has inflicted on DACA recipients, and the importance of a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers.
Padilla discussed the impacts of wrongful detention and deportation exercised by the Trump Administration, highlighting testimony from Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, a DACA recipient who was wrongfully detained at her green card interview and quickly deported, and who Padilla met with earlier this year. As countless stories of wrongful detention and deportation of DACA recipients under this Administration increase, Padilla emphasized the need for permanent protections and immigration reform.
“DACA is so much more than a work permit. It’s a promise. A promise to young people […] who proudly contribute so much to their families, their communities, and their countries,” said Senator Padilla. “A promise that if you come out of the shadows and you work hard and follow the rules, you will be protected. Because this is your home and you belong here. But tragically we’ve seen, in recent months, this administration doing everything they can to break that promise.”
Padilla further discussed the administration’s wrongful targeting of DACA recipients in its mass deportation campaign. In 2025, 261 DACA recipients were detained and at least 86 deported, despite having active DACA protections. DACA renewal processing times have skyrocketed; Padilla highlighted the growing number of Californians who have reached out to his office for assistance. Padilla emphasized the need for DACA and Dreamer protections from detention and deportation and criticized President Trump’s cruel attempt to cease DACA application processing.
Padilla has long championed permanent protections for Dreamers and DACA recipients and has been a leading voice in Congress for providing long-term undocumented immigrants with pathways to citizenship. In 2025, Padilla joined U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Durbin in introducing the Dream Act of 2025 to provide permanent protections for Dreamers and DACA recipients. The legislation would allow noncitizens without lawful status who were brought to the United States as children and meet certain education, military service, or work requirements to earn lawful permanent residence and a pathway to citizenship. Padilla and his Democratic colleagues have joined immigration experts and advocates to renew their urgent call for the passage of the Dream Act to provide a permanent pathway to citizenship.
Earlier this year, Padilla and his Democratic colleagues demanded that former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow reduce the severe delays in processing DACA renewal applications. In February, Padilla, Durbin, and Senator Kelly blasted DHS for wrongfully targeting and removing DACA recipients in a joint statement. Padilla has called attention to the increased risk of detention and deportation faced by DACA recipients when their renewal applications are not processed before their status expires. He emphasized that these long-term residents — who were brought to the country as children — have been working, studying, and living legally in the United States since 2012 and are vital members of American communities.
Padilla’s remarks at the press conference are available here.
Padilla’s remarks at the spotlight forum are available here.
###
Scottie's Playtime 