Trump DOJ's conduct during anti-ICE protest case shocks experts: 'Completely staggering'

Trump DOJ's conduct during anti-ICE protest case shocks experts: 'Completely staggering'
Activists attend a prayer service held outside of the Broadview ICE facility, in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., October 12, 2025, after U.S. President Donald Trump ordered increased federal law enforcement presence to assist in crime prevention. REUTERS/Jim Vondruska

Transcripts from the Department of Justice's prosecution of the "Broadview Six" anti-ICE protesters have left experts who read them shocked.

The Broadview Six were a group of protesters federally charged after demonstrating outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Illinois in 2025.

On Thursday, Judge April Perry, who presided over the case, ordered DOJ prosecutors to appear in court to explain their conduct before a grand jury when seeking an indictment. The DOJ's case came to a sudden end shortly after, when a U.S. Attorney dropped all charges days before a trial was set to begin.

According to transcripts from the Thursday hearing, Perry said that she had "never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior" that were displayed by DOJ prosecutors before a grand jury in 2025.

"I do believe deeply in the presumption of regularity and that most government attorneys are doing the best they can do to do the right thing," Perry said. "That trust has been broken."

"This is completely staggering," wrote Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow for the American Immigration Council, in reaction to Perry's comment about DOJ prosecutors breaking trust.

Chicago Tribune reporter Jason Meisner noted that Perry mentioned a "potential" for "sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct and for potential ethical violations, including lack of candor."

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

President Donald Trump seemed poised to lead the charge in regulating artificial intelligence this week, until some of his business buddies intervened, according to a new report.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that Trump reversed course on his planned executive order regulating AI at the eleventh hour after receiving pushback from his AI advisor, David Sacks; SpaceX founder Elon Musk; and a host of leaders from top AI companies. The reversal seemed to catch some administration officials off guard, especially considering its popularity among voters.

"Many administration officials were surprised by the president’s decision to cancel the event," according to the report. "Earlier in the week, Sacks had been briefed on the order by officials involved in its drafting, including science adviser Michael Kratsios, White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross. Sacks told them he could live with the order, the person said, though he pushed to shorten the window for companies to share their models."

"The order is not dead, the federal official said, and it is likely to be revisited, though it is not clear what form it will take in the future," it added.

Trump's abrupt reversal came at a time when public polling shows half of Americans are concerned about the growing use of AI in daily life. A recent Pew Research poll found 50% of Americans are concerned about AI, and many more believe it will significantly disrupt the job market.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

The Supreme Court revealed that a principle it used to rule on election cases was pure "legal fiction," according to one lawyer.

Marc Elias, a lawyer and lead plaintiff in multiple recent redistricting cases, said during a new episode of his "Democracy Docket" podcast that the Supreme Court has relied on the Purcell Principle to adjudicate election cases in the past, but seemed to forget that principle in Louisiana v. Callais. The Purcell Principle states that courts should not change election laws or procedures ahead of a major election.

"In some conceptual sense, [the Purcell Principle] makes sense, but there are two problems," Elias said. "First, it's entirely made up. Congress didn't say there needed to be this doctrine. States have not said there needs to be this doctrine. The Constitution doesn't demand it. No, this is entirely a made-up legal fiction by the Supreme Court."

"The second is how it's been implemented, or shall we say, how it's been wielded," he continued.

Elias also argued that Purcell seems to stand at odds with the Callais case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that state legislators can gerrymander their maps for partisan purposes, even if it results in a racially discriminatory outcome.

The Supreme Court also seemed content to turn the other cheek as states seemingly violated Purcell following the Callais decision, Elias argued.

For instance, the two states that immediately moved to redraw their maps following the decision — Alabama and Louisiana — had elections approaching, Elias said. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, issued a state of emergency to halt an ongoing election so the state could redraw its map. Alabama was just 10 days away from an election when it redrew its maps, Elias noted.

That move revealed just how hollow the Purcell Principle really is, Elias said.

"It's just kind of what the Supreme Court thinks at any one time about whether we're too close or not too close; whether there'll be disruption or not disruption; whether it will be unfair or fair," he said.

WASHINGTON — A multibillion-dollar package to fund immigration enforcement for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term faced new delays Thursday as Senate Republicans showed a rare split with the president over his new “anti-weaponization” fund.

The administration dispatched Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Republicans as many fought to add restrictions to Trump’s $1.776 billion fund as a condition for passing a proposed $72 billion for the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the hours-long closed-door meeting with Blanche included “spirited discussion.”

The Department of Justice announced Monday the fund for “victims of lawfare” in exchange for Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Both agencies are under his purview.

“It’s unprecedented to see a settlement between two parties that seem to be the same person,” Paul said.

Ultimately, senators left their meeting with Blanche with no immediate path forward for the budget reconciliation bill that requires a simple majority to pass. Senate Majority Leader John Thune can only afford to lose a handful of votes in the GOP-led Senate that is split 53-47, as all Democrats vow to oppose the package.

“We’re going home,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said as he made flight arrangements with his staff while standing outside the meeting room.

Thune told reporters, “We will pick up where we left off.”

Asked whether he thinks a resolution can be reached, the South Dakota Republican said: “That’s what I’m counting on.”

The Senate has adjourned except for pro forma sessions until the afternoon of June 1, the date Trump set to have the finished bill on his desk.

Among the sticking points in the Blanche meeting: whether Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot defendants who assaulted police officers would qualify for the financial relief.

“I did raise that issue,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. “But we haven’t seen (bill) language yet.”

The administration maintains the fund will be nonpartisan and not only open to Trump supporters. A five-seat commission — four to be appointed by Blanche and the fifth in consultation with Congress — will issue decisions on financial claims.

Further details emerged Tuesday from the Department of Justice, revealing that Trump and his family will be forever immune from tax audits as part of the settlement.

Ballroom battle

Before debate erupted over Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund, Republicans had already fractured over a $1 billion Secret Service security earmark in the bill, $220 million of which was set to be used to “harden” Trump’s White House ballroom project.

The funds for the “East Wing Modernization Project” would have paid for bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies, and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who lost his primary Saturday after Trump supported another candidate, told reporters he would not vote for ballroom funds.

Democrats claimed credit for getting the $1 billion tossed from the bill after challenging whether the provision fit within the strict parameters of reconciliation. Ultimately, the Senate parliamentarian ruled it out, sparking a social media attack from Trump on Tuesday.

Trump told reporters Thursday that if Senate Republicans didn’t find a way to pass the extra security money, “Then the White House won’t be a very secure place.”

Senate Dems vow to stop ‘slush fund’

Democrats pounced on the opportunity to spotlight the Republican division.

“This afternoon, Republicans — so divided, so dysfunctional, so disorganized — are fleeing Washington,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters at a press conference after movement on the package stalled.

“Republicans are divided over things that Americans don’t want, but Democrats are united around things that the people do want — for us to lower their costs, rein in the chaos, fight the corruption that is endemic to this administration,” the New York Democrat added.

Schumer added that “we’ll do everything we can to stop this slush fund, whether it’s in the courts, whether it’s legislative, whether it’s through reconciliation, or any other legislative means.”

Senate Democrats still plan to offer up a handful of painful amendments for GOP senators to vote on during a marathon voting session when and if the bill finally reaches the floor.

War powers vote postponed

On the other side of the Capitol, House Republicans abruptly delayed an Iran War Powers Resolution vote moments before it was scheduled to open on the floor.

This would have been the fourth time Democrats brought the privileged motion to the floor. The 1970s-era War Powers Resolution sets reporting procedures and limitations on a president’s military campaigns abroad.

An effort to curtail Trump’s campaign in Iran failed in a tied House vote just one week ago.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., shouted on the floor as the presiding officer moved procedures forward, skipping the War Powers Resolution.

“Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that’s costing tens of billions of dollars? Gas prices are through the roof. People can’t afford their groceries,” McGovern said, alleging the Republicans lacked the “guts” to vote on it.

The House now also leaves for the Memorial Day break and will not return until June 1.

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Colorado Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: info@coloradonewsline.com.

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}