SCOOP: House Judiciary Seeks "Complete Security Funding" for Federal Judges
Raskin wants protection for judges as political threats escalate following deportation ruling.
WASHINGTON — Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) sharply criticized what he described as a rising climate of intimidation against federal judges Tuesday, following incendiary remarks by Trump adviser Stephen Miller in the wake of a contentious Supreme Court decision on migrant deportations.
The controversy erupted after the high court ruled Monday to lift a lower court’s injunction that had temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting migrants to so-called “third countries”—nations they have no connection to—without offering them an opportunity to assert the dangers they might face there.
But Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who originally issued the injunction on April 18, clarified after the ruling that the Supreme Court's unsigned order did not invalidate his more recent May 21 decision, which halted the deportation of a group of Sudanese nationals to politically unstable South Sudan. The administration had been attempting to fast-track the deportations, even as Murphy's ruling emphasized due process protections under U.S. law.
That clarification prompted a sharp rebuke from Miller, who said on Fox News: “Expect fireworks tomorrow when we hold this judge accountable for refusing to obey the Supreme Court.” His comment—interpreted by critics as a veiled threat—sparked bipartisan concern over judicial safety and the rule of law.
Speaking exclusively to Migrant Insider on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, Raskin warned of the real and growing dangers judges now face.
“We’re working on trying to get complete security funding, so every judge can decide his or her cases with the security of knowing that they and their families are not in danger,” said Raskin, who serves as Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. “We’ve got to make sure that this onslaught of threats and denunciation of the judges doesn’t affect their ability to render objective dispassion and justice.”
Asked whether Republicans on the committee, including Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), support such security measures, Raskin replied: “We’ll see. I mean, we want to make sure that [judges] get all the money that they’re asking for.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday evening marked a significant victory for Trump’s hardline immigration policy. It reversed Murphy’s April 18 nationwide injunction, which had required that migrants slated for removal to third countries receive a “meaningful opportunity” to present fear-based claims. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court’s two other liberal justices, issued a blistering dissent, calling the court’s action “as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.”
The administration, citing national security concerns and alleging the migrants in question had committed serious crimes—including murder and armed robbery—had pushed for rapid deportation. But critics argued that many of the proposed third-country destinations, including South Sudan and Libya, are unstable and pose grave risks of torture or death for deportees.
After the Supreme Court's unsigned order, Judge Murphy reiterated that his May 21 ruling—narrower in scope and focused on the specific group of Sudanese deportees—remained in effect. That decision kept the eight migrants in custody at a U.S. military facility in Djibouti, citing the risk of human rights violations if sent to South Sudan.
The Justice Department responded with fury. Solicitor General D. John Sauer accused Murphy of “unprecedented defiance” and asked the Supreme Court to clarify—or effectively override—the May 21 decision. In a filing Tuesday, the DOJ urged the justices to “put a swift end to the ongoing irreparable harm to the executive branch,” even suggesting that Murphy be removed from the case.
Stephen Miller, for his part, amplified those sentiments in his Fox News appearance, setting off alarms in legal and political circles by implying retribution against the judge.
Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, called Miller’s rhetoric “dangerous” and symptomatic of a broader disregard for judicial independence within Trump’s orbit.
“If [Miller] doesn’t like renegade judges, he should start with Trump’s nomination of [judicial nominee Emil] Bove to the courts,” Raskin said. “He basically said the administration should ignore the federal court rulings and that the courts should ‘go F themselves.’”
While the White House has not officially commented on Miller’s remarks, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin took a celebratory tone after Monday’s decision, tweeting: “Fire up the deportation planes.”
Legal scholars warn that such inflammatory language from senior officials—especially when paired with efforts to discredit or bypass judicial decisions—poses a serious risk to the integrity of the legal system.
“Criticism of court rulings is fair game in a democracy,” Raskin noted. “But if they disagree with what a district court judge says, they should appeal the ruling. That’s the way our system works.”
The clash over third-country deportations now sits at the intersection of several volatile issues: separation of powers, executive overreach, immigration policy, and personal safety for judges in an era of increasingly politicized courts.
Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, sounded the alarm.
“Each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief,” she wrote, “it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”
As the case lingers before the nation’s highest court, the stakes now go beyond the fate of eight men detained in Djibouti. They cut to the heart of how far a government—emboldened by ideological fervor—can go in pressing its will over judges charged with upholding the law.