Key Takeaways
• Over 220 lawsuits were filed in Trump’s second term first 100 days; 60 directly challenged immigration changes.
• Trump expanded expedited removal, letting officers deport immigrants without a judge; ACLU and courts intervened.
• Student visa revocations, sanctuary city challenges, and the Alien Enemies Act triggered widespread legal battles and reversals.
The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have seen the administration launch sweeping new deportation policies that have faced strong and immediate legal pushback. In this short time, courts, advocates, and cities have all moved to challenge the government on many fronts, making these early days a remarkable period in United States 🇺🇸 immigration history. As reported by VisaVerge.com, the scale and speed of these changes – from rapid deportation to new threats against “sanctuary” communities – have created a wave of lawsuits and court decisions that will shape immigration law for years to come.
Unpacking the Legal Battles: A Surge of Lawsuits
A standout fact from these first 100 days is the sheer number of lawsuits. According to ABC News, at least 220 lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration, with about 60 focusing directly on immigration changes. That means, on average, there were more than two lawsuits filed every day during this period—about one every 12 hours. These numbers show just how contested the administration’s approach has been, touching every corner of the system.
Focus on Expedited Removal: The Fast-Track That Sparked Controversy
A main target of this wave of lawsuits has been the push to expand “expedited removal”. Under this policy, certain immigrants can be removed from the country by an immigration officer without ever seeing a judge. This form of fast-track deportation was meant to clear out cases quickly, but it set off alarm bells among legal groups. Organizations such as the ACLU have gone to court, arguing that this skips key protections the law promises to everyone, citizen or noncitizen. They compare it to giving someone less of a chance to explain themselves than those who get a ticket for running a stop sign.
The lawsuits challenging expedited removal refer to rights under both the Fifth Amendment, which protects due process (the right to fair procedures), and under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which is the chief law covering immigration to the United States 🇺🇸. Lawyers also argue that rushed removals violate the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that forces government agencies to follow fair rules before making important changes. So far, courts have stopped parts of the new rules from going into effect while legal fights continue.
The Use of Historic and Rare Laws: The Alien Enemies Act
One of the most surprising developments is President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act from 1798, a law that was made more than 200 years ago. This law was designed for times of war or invasion and allows the United States 🇺🇸 president to remove people from countries with which America is fighting. The Trump administration reached for this old law to send large groups of people, such as Salvadorans, out of the country.
This step has sparked big legal questions: Can an old law built for emergencies be used in these ways today? In high-profile cases like Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s, courts have voiced concern. Some judges say the law cannot override newer standards that demand fair hearings. The Supreme Court even stepped in to say that each person facing deportation under this law must get a clear notice and the opportunity to contest their removal personally. This move forces the government to show that its actions fit both the law and modern ideas of fairness.
“Sanctuary” Cities in the Crosshairs
The Trump administration also placed “sanctuary” jurisdictions in its sights. These are cities and states that have their own rules to protect people from broad deportation sweeps, usually by limiting how local police cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The Justice Department quickly took a hard line, threatening to cut off money for these places or even sue local officials who did not help in immigration enforcement. In return, local governments have fought back. Many cities filed their own lawsuits, arguing that the administration was overstepping what the law allows. In several cases, judges agreed, blocking the government from withholding federal funds meant for public safety or forcing city police to act like federal immigration agents. The overall result is a patchwork of mixed rulings, with neither side claiming full victory so far.
Visa Revocations and the Impact on International Students
International students were not spared from the flurry of new immigration changes. In one swift move, the administration began revoking thousands of student visas using rarely used pieces of the INA, focusing on students linked—fairly or not—to pro-Palestinian activism. When news of these revocations spread, many students reported sudden loss of status, threat of removal, and disruption to their academic careers in the United States 🇺🇸.
Legal teams, universities, and students themselves fought back. By late April, after strong pushback and several lawsuits, officials began reversing some of these decisions. But the message was clear: even students lawfully in the country have found themselves caught up in larger immigration and political battles.
For those wanting to learn more about the process or how it may affect them, the U.S. Department of State’s visa policy page offers official details and guidance.
Slashing Legal Aid and Asylum Rights
Another area that saw fast changes was funding for legal help. The Trump administration moved to end support for lawyers helping unaccompanied minors—children who arrived in the United States 🇺🇸 without parents. Legal help can make all the difference in these cases, as immigration law is complicated even for adults fluent in English.
Courts stepped in to demand that at least some funding be restored for these legal services. Broader lawsuits are now underway, arguing that it’s not just unfair—but possibly illegal—to deny legal aid in cases where children face being sent away alone to dangerous countries. Meanwhile, reports have surfaced that hundreds of asylum claims were dismissed quickly based on internal guidance, tossing out cases without hearings. Federal lawsuits have now been filed, and judges are watching to see if asylum seekers’ rights are being cut in ways that violate long-standing U.S. commitments and laws.
Policies and Court Orders: The Ball Is Still Rolling
The chart below highlights the main areas of legal challenge.
| Policy Area | Administration Action | Example | Outcome (as of First 100 Days) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expedited Removal | Executive order, broadened use | Nationwide expansion | Challenged and partially blocked by lawsuits |
| Alien Enemies Act | Used for mass removals | Salvadorans, others | Supreme Court says hearings required for each case |
| Sanctuary Cities | Threats to cut funding, force cooperation | Litigation, countersuits | Judges block some actions; others under review |
| Student Visa Revocation | New use of INA to target activism links | Visa revocations | Some reversals after court challenges |
| Birthright Citizenship | Sought to end by executive order | Blocked by courts | Pending Supreme Court review |
| Asylum Dismissals | Administrative, no hearings | Asylum claim dismissals | Lawsuits filed, review ongoing |
None of these fights have ended; most are stuck in legal limbo. New rules and executive orders have run straight into a wall of legal resistance. For example, the effort to stop “birthright” citizenship (the rule that anyone born in the United States 🇺🇸 is a citizen) was blocked by lower courts and is now waiting for the Supreme Court to decide.
The Courtroom as Central Stage: Executive vs. Judicial Power
As courts passed down more rulings, the tension between the executive branch (the White House and its agencies) and the judicial branch (the courts and judges) has grown. In a striking development reported by PBS NewsHour, a federal judge found probable cause to say that Trump officials might have committed “criminal contempt” by deporting people after court orders clearly told them not to. These kinds of claims—rare in any presidency—highlight the deep struggles now happening over who really gets to decide how and when immigrants are removed from America’s communities.
A judge captured the feeling when he wrote in one decision that the government was trying “to stash away residents … in foreign prisons without semblance of due process”. The concern is not just about technical mistakes, but about a broader lack of respect for the protections built into U.S. law since the Constitution was written.
Why All These Legal Battles Matter
For many people, these disputes might sound technical or far removed from daily life. However, the decisions made now will touch thousands, from the student worried about her studies, to the worker who built a life in the United States 🇺🇸, to the parent facing separation from children. Even cities and communities are caught in the struggle, trying to walk a line between federal law and local values.
Moreover, these lawsuits have become bigger than just questions about this policy or that group of immigrants. They are turning into a test of separation-of-powers, the foundation that says no part of the government, not even the president, can go beyond the limits set by law and the Constitution.
Impacts on Different Groups
- Immigrants: Many face new uncertainty. Faster deportations, fewer chances for legal help, and sudden changes to visa policy have created real fear. Those already in legal fights are seeing their cases caught in a bigger tug-of-war between branches of government.
- Employers and Schools: Businesses and colleges relying on skilled immigrants and international students are dealing with sudden rule changes, losing valued workers or students almost overnight.
- Local Governments: Cities and states now spend time and money going to court to protect their own laws and budgets, often finding themselves in the middle of federal-local arguments.
- The Broader Public: Many Americans worry about what these changes mean—whether for local safety, family unity, or basic fairness.
The Road Ahead: What to Watch For
The next steps rest in the courts. With so many cases going to appeals courts and some likely headed for the Supreme Court, it could take months or even years to know which new rules will stand. In the meantime, advocates have promised to keep fighting wherever they think rights are at risk. From asylum eligibility to funding for legal help, every inch of immigration law is now being argued over, sometimes multiple times in different courts.
For officials, the big question is learning if the president has gone too far. For judges, it’s about whether they can stop policies that risk going beyond what the law allows, especially when it comes to due process. For families, workers, students, and entire communities, the hope is for stability and fairness in a system that has been rocked by sudden change.
Closing Thoughts
The Trump administration’s first hundred days of its second term have proven to be a turbulent time for immigration policy. With aggressive deportation policies, use of old laws like the Alien Enemies Act, and bold moves against sanctuary cities and student visas, no group has been untouched. Legal challenges, especially those focusing on expedited removal, have become a daily event, showing that many Americans—inside and outside government—want changes to follow both the letter and spirit of the law.
The outcome of these battles will not only decide the fate of thousands of people but also, very likely, set new standards for how far any president can go in shaping the immigration system. As lawsuits move forward and judges issue more rulings, all eyes will remain on the courts, which now stand as the central arena in the fight over United States 🇺🇸 immigration policy.
Learn Today
Expedited Removal → A process allowing certain immigrants to be deported by officers without a court hearing, intended to speed removals.
Alien Enemies Act → A 1798 law that authorizes the president to deport nationals of countries at war with the US.
Sanctuary Cities → Cities or states that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to protect undocumented immigrants.
Fifth Amendment → A part of the US Constitution guaranteeing due process, or fair legal procedures, for all individuals.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) → The main law governing immigration and citizenship in the United States.
This Article in a Nutshell
President Trump’s second-term immigration policies sparked over 220 lawsuits in 100 days. Key battles included controversial expedited removals, use of historic laws, student visa revocations, and threats to sanctuary cities. Courts blocked or reviewed many actions, leaving the future of immigration policy uncertain and thousands anxiously awaiting judicial outcomes and stability.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Michelle Obama voices worry over Trump’s deportation policy
• Donald Trump admits U.S. citizens can face deportation mistakes
• Colorado immigrants face new deportation deadlines after Supreme Court ruling
• Trump administration invokes Alien Enemies Act in new deportation push
• US judge orders release of Venezuelan couple, halts some deportations
