10,000 rulings from 10,000 maniacs

Because the might belongs to judges, because the might belongs to loons

I don’t know much about the rock group 10,000 Maniacs other than when Natalie Merchant was its lead singer, the group’s cover of Because the Night reached No. 11 on the charts.

The group’s name popped up when I read the Politico story, “10,000 rulings: The courts’ overwhelming rebuke of Trump’s ICE policies.”

That’s one way of looking at it if you are an open borders maniac. But if you believe in America protecting its sovereignty, then you believe the judges are out of their minds. Judges don’t set policy, presidents do. Unless Trump is doing something unconstitutional, judges have no authority to rebuke the president.

Catch-and-release is for fishermen, not law enforcement officers.

Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassare threw the 10,000 number right back at Politico: “That’s great, now the American people can see how judges are putting personal policy preferences ahead of proper interpretations of the law.”

Politico’s story said:

Politico is tracking the tens of thousands of detention cases that have flooded the system since ICE adopted its detention policy last July. Today we are releasing a full database of those rulings, giving the public an opportunity to see under the hood of our reporting—which has documented the courts’ lopsided results, ICE’s tactics for defying judges’ orders and the rising tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration.

The trend is clear from every angle. The administration has lost nearly 10,400 of the cases that have been decided, and prevailed in about 1,200. While some judges have heard more cases than others, the overwhelming majority of judges—more than 425—have reached the same conclusion. Even a majority of Trump-appointed judges have sided against the administration.

As Henry Kissinger said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” These men and women in black robes are in love with their power.

The numbers impress small minds, but the reason behind the numbers were buried in Paragraph 19:

Federal law requires the detention of “applicants for admission” to the U.S. who are “seeking admission” to the country. Every previous administration has interpreted the provision to apply primarily to people who were apprehended at the border—until last year. In a July 8, 2025 memo, acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons said that millions of immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years would now be treated as “seeking admission” to the country, subjecting them to mandatory detention without the opportunity for bond.

Until Lyons’ memo, millions fewer people were treated as eligible for detention, and people who were detained could still be released on bond, at the discretion of immigration judges who work for the executive branch. But the administration’s policy shift pushed millions of people into a framework that denies bond hearings from the outset.

Courts were then flooded with lawsuits from individual detainees, seeking bond hearings or release based on their individual circumstances—and that’s why this policy has produced such an enormous volume of court cases. ICE has also either defied or tried to circumvent many of those rulings—for example, moving detainees to a new state, where they’ll need to bring a new case with a new lawyer; or providing hearings that judges found to be insufficient. That gamesmanship creates even more litigation, and has been a major driver of courts’ mounting frustration with the administration.

If they are not taking sides in these disputes, judges should not be frustrated. The president is supposed to detain and deport illegal aliens. Are you here? Are you an American? Do you have a visa? Then adios, amigo.

Politico said:

The administration’s predictions that ICE’s detention policy would be vindicated on appeal has met mixed results. Two federal appeals courts—the 5th Circuit and 8th Circuit—have ruled in favor of the administration’s position. Those courts cover parts of the country, including Texas and Minnesota, where enforcement efforts have been particularly aggressive.

Three others—the New York-based 2nd Circuit, Atlanta-based 11th Circuit and Cincinnati-based 6th-Circuit—have ruled against the administration. Another panel in the 7th Circuit deadlocked. More appellate rulings are imminent.

The division among appeals courts points toward an ultimate resolution by the Supreme Court.

So roughly half these 10,000 rulings against Trump were thrown out on appeal.

Politico ended its piece:

“Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency,” U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, a Clinton appointee based in Texas, wrote in a three-page ruling ordering the release of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos. “And the rule of law be damned.”

To Politico, he described Trump to a T but the rest of us see it as a confession by Judge Biery.