A federal judge who blocked the Trump administration from deporting 350,000 Haitian migrants has donated over $38,000 to Democratic campaigns, including to Joe Biden, the president who appointed her.
DC US District Judge Ana C. Reyes issued an order Monday preventing the revocation of Temporary Protected Status for Haitian migrants, drawing immediate criticism from administration officials and Republican lawmakers who questioned her impartiality.
The timing of her appointment raises eyebrows that even the most casual observer cannot ignore. Biden placed Reyes on the federal bench in February 2023, just one month after his administration began allowing up to 30,000 Haitians to enter monthly through a humanitarian parole program. Coincidence? Perhaps. But the optics are brutal.
Federal election records show Reyes has apparently donated exclusively to Democratic campaigns since 2008 while working as a litigation attorney at Williams & Connolly LLP, the New York Post reported. She maxed out contributions to Biden for President with two $2,800 donations in August 2020 and gave $2,700 to Hillary Clinton's campaign against Trump in 2016.
Then-California Sen. Kamala Harris received $4,500 from Reyes during her failed 2019 presidential bid. The Uruguay-born jurist even donated $200 to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's campaign in 2019, supporting the congresswoman who has championed the "Abolish ICE" movement.
While working pro bono for refugee groups, Reyes built a career in international litigation before ascending to the bench. She emigrated from Uruguay to Kentucky as a child. Her background in refugee advocacy, combined with her donation history, paints a picture of someone deeply invested in one side of the immigration debate.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) posted on X that "an unelected Democrat judge" had "unilaterally" halted President Trump's deportations. His frustration captures a growing conservative concern about judges substituting their policy preferences for constitutional governance.
"When a Democrat president can create a TEMPORARY program and an unelected Democrat judge can unilaterally block a duly-elected Republican president from ever undoing it, we do not live in a democracy," Moreno declared. "This outrageous decision cannot stand."
The senator characterized Reyes' ruling as effectively granting "Permanent Protected Status" rather than the temporary relief the program was designed to provide. He has a point. What good is "temporary" if it can never expire?
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin fired back on X with three words that signal the administration's resolve: "Supreme Court, here we come." She noted Haiti's TPS designation originated from an earthquake over 15 years ago.
"It was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that's how previous administrations have used it for decades," McLaughlin said. The TPS program has provided humanitarian relief to migrants from disaster-plagued regions since the 1990s, with the Obama administration adding Haitians following the devastating 2010 earthquake.
Similar cases blocking Trump administration efforts to rescind protections for Venezuelan and Nicaraguan migrants have already been struck down by appeals courts and the Supreme Court. This precedent suggests Reyes' ruling may face the same fate.
Reyes' order stated it was "substantially likely" that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to terminate the program "because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants." That is quite the accusation to level without concrete evidence of discriminatory intent.
The judge noted Noem "has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk — twelve countries up, twelve countries down." Consistency in policy application, apparently, now constitutes proof of racism rather than principled enforcement.
Reyes argued that Haiti faces a "perfect storm of suffering" that cannot be dismissed as merely "concerning." Meanwhile, the Biden administration, which appointed her, falsely accused Border Patrol agents of whipping Haitian migrants at the Texas border. The pattern of activist judging continues, but this time the Supreme Court appears ready to intervene.