The Trump administration is currently embroiled in a contentious legal battle, attempting to remove a critical immigration case from the purview of U.S. District Court Judge Chutkan. This strategic maneuver, described by a lawyer for the plaintiffs as not being “in good faith,” marks a significant development in ongoing challenges to the former president’s stringent immigration policy, raising serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process in high-stakes cases.
At the heart of this dispute is a travel ban initially announced by then-President Donald Trump in June, affecting individuals from a dozen specific nations, including Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan. This measure was justified by the administration as essential for national security and public safety, designed to protect the United States from perceived threats and ensure responsible immigration practices.
The plaintiffs in this green card lawsuit challenge the State Department’s policy of equating an entry ban with a visa issuance ban, arguing this interpretation far exceeds the scope of the president’s statutory authority. Their legal strategy centers on a nondelegation theory, contending that such broad powers were not delegated by Congress, thereby rendering the administration’s actions unlawful and impacting countless visa applicants seeking legitimate entry.
Judge Chutkan, assigned to the case, possesses a notable history with the Trump administration, having previously overseen federal election interference litigation involving the former president. Her prior judicial opinions have demonstrated a critical stance on governmental misinterpretations of law, particularly in immigration matters, making her a formidable figure in this federal court proceeding.
In a recent escalation, lawyer Curtis Morrison, representing the plaintiffs, filed urgent motions for both expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction. Morrison asserts that the Trump administration is “desperately trying to get this case transferred away from Judge Chutkan,” employing tactics that starkly contradict their arguments in similar past cases before the same judge, revealing a clear intent to manipulate the judicial process for a favorable outcome.
The motion for a preliminary injunction is particularly urgent because diversity visa applicants face a hard deadline of September 30, 2025, to overcome the ban and complete their immigration process. Morrison emphasizes that without a timely decision on the lawfulness of the ban, thousands of eligible individuals could lose their opportunity to immigrate, underscoring the severe implications of the administration’s delaying tactics on real lives.
The irony of the administration’s current argument—seeking reassignment based on the judge handling other related cases—is not lost on the plaintiffs’ legal team. This stands in stark contrast to their previous stance in 2020, where they argued for the case to be moved to a judge already familiar with the broader proclamation. This reversal, according to Morrison, is clear evidence of bad faith, driven by their awareness of Judge Chutkan’s established views on the legal issues at stake and a desire to avoid an unfavorable ruling that could cause a “serious problem with the implementation of the travel ban.”
