President Donald Trump’s deportation agenda is moving forward at a rapid pace, even as dozens of lawsuits brought by liberal legal groups aim to forestall his efforts to achieve 1 million annual deportations of illegal migrants.
With third-country removals greenlit by the Supreme Court, the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) tied up in appellate litigation, and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement facing resistance in liberal jurisdictions, the administration is testing the outer bounds of its immigration enforcement authority and its ability to fulfill Trump’s campaign promises to carry out record-setting deportation numbers.

A tally of lawsuits against the Trump administration compiled by Just Security revealed at least 50 to 60 deportation-related lawsuits against the Trump administration, and that the number of immigration-related suits overall exceeds 100.
Yet despite courtroom delays, the numbers show Trump’s deportation agenda is working. According to recent ICE data reported by CBS, the administration has already carried out nearly 150,000 deportations since Inauguration Day, averaging more than 800 per day. At that pace, the Trump administration is on track to exceed 300,000 removals in its first year back, although that would still fall short of its stated annual goal of 1 million.
The administration’s efforts have been bolstered by support from the Justice Department. FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said Friday that the bureau has assisted in more than 21,900 immigration-related arrests since January.
The FBI’s surge also includes over 12,400 violent crime and gang-related arrests and the seizure of more than 1,400 kilograms of fentanyl, all part of what Bongino described as an “unprecedented joint operation” to reclaim control at the southern border and beyond.
“We’re right around the 6-month mark, and thanks to the leadership of this administration and the work of our men and women of law enforcement, there is no doubt our country is safer today than it was in January,” Bongino wrote in a post on X.
Third-country removals ramp up
After the Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s block last month, ICE resumed third-country deportations — the practice of sending individuals to nations that aren’t their countries of origin.
Following the high court’s approval, ICE acting Director Todd Lyons issued a memorandum telling immigration officers to remove migrants to third countries with as little as six hours’ notice in “exigent” circumstances.
The first such deportation flight under the new policy landed on July 16 in Eswatini, where five migrants from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam, and Yemen were removed. Trump border czar Tom Homan praised the move as necessary.
“When you’ve got countries that won’t take their nationals back, and they can’t stay here, we find another country willing to accept them,” Homan told Politico earlier this month.
Before the deportations to Eswatini, the administration finally achieved success in its hard-fought effort to deport eight illegal alien criminals to South Sudan after lower courts stalled the removals for weeks.
Critics, however, allege that the policy could lead to life-threatening outcomes. Litigation against third-country removals continues in Massachusetts, where immigrant advocacy groups such as the National Immigration Litigation Alliance argue the rapid removals deprive migrants of a meaningful legal process.
Alien Enemies Act is still tied up in court
While third-country removals surge ahead, the Trump administration’s attempt to use the 18th-century statute to expedite certain deportations remains legally unsettled. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in June over the AEA’s constitutionality and scope, but has not yet issued a ruling.
As Center for Immigration Studies fellow Art Arthur told the Washington Examiner, “What we really need is for the courts to say how much process is due before you remove somebody under the Alien Enemies Act.”
For now, other legal pathways are proving more productive. “They do have other tools available,” Arthur noted. “We certainly never used the Alien Enemies Act for this purpose in the past,” he said, underscoring the reasoning for courts to clarify whether it can be used for mass removals of members of the terrorist-designated Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua.
The Abrego Garcia legal maze
One case that exemplifies the tangled legal terrain is that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran man represented by the American Civil Liberties Union who was deported earlier this year despite a 2019 immigration court limited order forbidding his removal to El Salvador due to concerns at the time related to persecution from rival gangs. Abrego Garcia is an accused MS-13 gang member.
After his removal from the United States in March and subsequent detention at a mega-prison in El Salvador, the Trump administration brought him back in June and charged him with human smuggling, allegations tied to a 2022 traffic stop in which Tennessee authorities suspected he was transporting illegal migrants across the country.
The administration still intends to deport him again, this time possibly to a third country.
Abrego Garcia’s fate now hinges on a pair of recent court orders. U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, an appointee of former President Barack Obama in Tennessee, cast serious doubt on the government’s claims that Abrego was tied to MS-13, finding no evidence of gang affiliation or credible testimony. Though Crenshaw ordered his release from federal custody on Wednesday, a magistrate judge later approved a 30-day delay “subject to further order,” at Abrego’s legal team’s request to prevent ICE from immediately re-detaining him for removal.
At nearly the same time, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, also an Obama appointee in Maryland, issued a sweeping order that restored Abrego’s pre-deportation legal posture and barred ICE from detaining him again without at least 72 hours’ notice. She also required that any future removal proceedings occur after the Salvadoran national is transferred back to Maryland, which could come in August.
If, after the 30-day clock expires, the administration seeks to deport Abrego to a third country, the next move would likely occur in immigration court. Arthur explained, “If they try to send him to a third country, he can move to reopen [his removal proceedings] again.” That motion would be discretionary, meaning the immigration judge does not have to grant it, and would center on whether new facts justify revisiting his limited protection from removal to El Salvador.
If the motion to reopen is denied, Abrego could appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. A loss there would allow him to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Depending on how that panel rules and which party seeks review, the dispute could ultimately be catapulted to the U.S. Supreme Court.
California’s legal wall
Perhaps the most formidable legal resistance remains in California, where local policy and judicial orders have limited ICE’s operations in major population centers such as Los Angeles, which is also a liberal bastion with “sanctuary city” policies that have gummed up the federal government’s deportation plans.
On July 12, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California imposed two sweeping temporary restraining orders: one barring law enforcement from detaining suspected illegal immigrants without reasonable suspicion, and another requiring immediate access to legal counsel for those detained.
The orders, which apply to the seven Golden State counties under the court’s jurisdiction, have effectively frozen routine ICE enforcement actions in the Los Angeles region.
Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley opined at the time of the California judge’s ruling that the judge likely overstepped the court’s authority, posting to X that her decisions were “breathtakingly broad and, in my view, will be difficult to sustain on appeal.”
On a separate front related to combating California recalcitrance, the Trump administration has filed a federal lawsuit against Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass (D), and the City Council, arguing that the city’s sanctuary policies violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
The lawsuit, filed in the Central District of California, claims the city’s refusal to cooperate with ICE has contributed to “lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism,” following a wave of protests targeting immigration enforcement.
“Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi. “It ends under President Trump.”
New York in the crosshairs as Illinois judge dismisses sanctuary lawsuit
The legal confrontation has now extended east. On Thursday, the Trump administration filed suit against New York City, Mayor Eric Adams, and the City Council, accusing them of systematically obstructing federal immigration enforcement.
The 37-page complaint, filed in federal court in Brooklyn, argues that the city’s sanctuary laws, including prohibitions on ICE detainers, limits on jail access, and restrictions on information-sharing, violate the federal government’s supremacy over immigration enforcement.
Though Adams had previously aligned himself with the president on some of the administration’s immigration policies, the Justice Department says the state is overall recalcitrant. The lawsuit follows a violent incident in Manhattan in which a customs officer was shot and wounded by a Dominican national previously released from custody despite an ICE request.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem blamed the mayor and city council, nearly all Democrats, saying “the people that were in charge of keeping the public safe refused to do so.”
The lawsuit against the Empire State follows a wave of similar complaints filed earlier this year against cities in Illinois, including Chicago, and local municipalities in New Jersey, which have similar policies that aim to stonewall ICE’s deportation efforts.
On Friday, the administration suffered a temporary setback in its efforts to hold Illinois officials accountable for their anti-immigration enforcement policies after a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s lawsuit infringed on state sovereignty.
DHS STARTS DEPORTATION FLIGHTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM ‘ALLIGATOR ALCATRAZ’: DESANTIS
U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins cited the principles of “dual sovereignty” in a 64-page decision determining it was “impossible to ignore the state sovereignty concerns” that would arise if the Trump administration’s policy overtook state and local rules.
While the administration is making progress toward its deportation goals, the sheer number of lawsuits it faces underscores the hurdles ahead for its target of 1 million deportations per year, which could become more attainable once the high court settles some of the administration’s legal tests of immigration authority.