DHS General Counsel James Percival argues that a small group of federal district judges repeatedly block the administration’s immigration policies, labeling their actions as political activism and defiance of the Supreme Court.
Percival began publishing a list of judges on social media, identifying those he says obstruct key immigration measures. Critics contend the approach unfairly targets the judiciary.
He emphasizes that the issue is limited to a handful of judges rather than a systemic problem across the courts, and that the effort aims to inform the public, not intimidate judges.
According to Percival, activist plaintiffs often engage in forum shopping, filing cases in venues that allow them to repeatedly appear before the same judges with questionable arguments.
He cited a case where a Boston judge halted a deportation flight until the Supreme Court intervened, describing the detained individuals as serious criminals and accusing the judge of obstructing enforcement.
The Supreme Court ultimately overruled the judge, with a liberal justice concurring that the judge could not defy the Court.
Percival asserts that highlighting these repeat offenders is intended to preserve the credibility of the judiciary, noting that most judges follow the law.
He contrasts this “Worst of the Worst” judges series with a separate DHS program that profiles criminal illegal immigrants, stating both aim to educate the public about agency operations.
Specific examples include an Illinois judge who paused termination of Temporary Protected Status for Burmese nationals despite multiple Supreme Court rulings, and a Maryland judge who blocked removal of a high‑profile illegal immigrant.
A Los Angeles judge was accused of micromanaging DHS policy by characterizing anti‑ICE protesters as legal observers and labeling the agency as violent.
Percival argues that public frustration over perceived inaction on immigration matters stems from judicial interference, particularly in the wind‑down of Temporary Protected Status.
Critics warn that publishing the list could increase threats toward judges, while Percival maintains that factual critique of judicial decisions is permissible in a free society.
He frames the dispute as a classic separation‑of‑powers issue, asserting the executive branch has the right to express disagreement with the judiciary.
During a recent visit to a federal investigative unit, Percival highlighted the agency’s broad portfolio and the importance of legal support for its personnel.
