Judge’s ruling in Fresno Border Patrol case is not a ‘judicial coup’ | Opinion

The MAGAverse is exploding because a federal judge in Fresno followed the law in telling the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Border Patrol that they cannot infringe on a person’s constitutional rights when carrying out immigration enforcement activities.

You would have thought District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston had required that green cards be handed out to every undocumented resident, criminal or not.

“This is INSANE. The JUDICIAL COUP continues,” Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality best known for her incendiary posts on social media, said on X. “U.S. Federal District Judge Jennifer Thurston just issued an order banning US Border Patrol from arresting illegal aliens ‘without warrant.’”

Of course, Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy and Homeland Security adviser, had to weigh in. “This is madness,” he posted on X.

“It takes days or weeks to obtain a single warrant for a single criminal search,” Miller said. “Requiring a warrant for Border Patrol to conduct an interdiction of an illegal alien is an act of legal insurrection against national sovereignty.”

We should note that Miller was the architect of Trump’s cruel immigration policies during his first term that saw thousands of children ripped from their parents’ arms through his family separation policy.

Miller continues: “Never in the history of our country or any country has a criminal judicial warrant been required to stop a foreign trespasser from invading your territory. Congress, indeed, has explicitly EXCLUDED all such procedures for alien removals.”

Miller is wrong. Congress has not explicitly eliminated the need for warrants for the arrest of an undocumented immigrant.

CNN political commentator Scott Jennings called Thurston’s ruling “a judicial coup.” He advised the Trump administration to ignore the judge.

“It’s judicial tyranny, it’s a judicial coup, the usurping of the president’s Article II powers,” said Jennings.

The headline on Fox News: “Blue state judge attempts to stop Border Patrol from arresting suspected illegal immigrants without warrant.”

In typical fashion, their followers immediately called Thurston a traitor, incompetent and much worse for following the law.

Thurston was appointed magistrate judge in 2009 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, before her elevation to her current position in 2019.

What Thurston ruled

A Biden appointee, Thurston ruled that if the Border Patrol carries out more immigration enforcement activities like the Kern County raid in January, it will be barred from making any arrests unless they have a warrant or suspects a person might flee before one can be obtained.

Her ruling allowed a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern and Southern California and the United Farm Workers to proceed. The two organizations sued the federal government in February alleging the immigration enforcement operation by Border Patrol agents from El Centro violated federal law and Fourth Amendment constitutional rights of five county residents.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that “agents tailed cars, or pulled cars over from the shoulder; targeted people of color, people who appeared to be farm workers, and people who appeared to be day laborers for stops; and did so without any basis to believe that anyone in the car was violating an immigration law.”

Plaintiff María Guadalupe Hernández Espinoza said in a press statement, “They stopped us because we look Latino or like farm workers, because of the color of our skin. It was unfair.”

Federal immigration officials should realize that racial profiling and constitutional violations are not permitted. Thurston agrees. Her ruling impacts the massive Eastern District Court of California, which stretches from the Oregon border to Kern County, except the coastal areas.

“Border Patrol is enjoined from conducting detentive stops in this District unless, pre-stop, the detaining agent has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is a noncitizen who is present within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law, as required by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Thurston wrote in her 88-page ruling.

The highly publicized “Return to Sender” operation—which U.S. Customs and Border Protection said was focused on individuals involved in smuggling and was part of its efforts to dismantle transnational criminal organizations—netted 78 people. However, the nonprofit media outlet CalMatters found during an April investigation that the Border Patrol had no prior knowledge of the immigration or criminal history of 77 of the arrestees.

Margot Cleveland, a lawyer and adjunct professor at the University of Notre Dame College of Business, said Thurston went by the book in her ruling. She identifies herself as “Catholic conservative.”

“I’m seeing A LOT of what I believe is misreporting regarding an order entered yesterday by Judge Thurston,” Cleveland posted Wednesday on X. “Her ACTUAL order appears to be consistent with federal law.

“The ACTUAL order is merely what law requires & policy states, although the ‘comply with law’ injunctions are disfavored.”

For people who paint themselves as law and order types, those harping about Thurston’s ruling should have a firmer grasp of the Constitution.

This story was originally published May 2, 2025 at 9:20 AM.