The Trump administration suffered two legal defeats within hours on Friday.

A judge in California ordered the release of a Syrian national it has been seeking to deport while a federal Rhode Island judge blocked the imposition of new conditions on domestic violence programs as part of the president’s campaign against “gender ideology.”

Details of both cases were shared on X by Kyle Cheney, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico.

Newsweek contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and press inquiry form respectively.

Why It Matters

With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress as well as the White House the courts have emerged as one of the main impediments to Trump administration policy.

The administration has suffered a number of prominent legal defeats including courts striking down punitive measures introduced by Trump against law firms involved in proceedings against him, blocking a bid to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protection and removing sanctions aimed at International Criminal Court employees.

Release of Salam Maklad

U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Thurston, of the Eastern District of California, on Friday instructed the release of Salam Maklad, a Syrian from the Druze religious minority who arrived in the United States in 2002 without valid entry documents and claimed asylum, according to court documents seen by Newsweek.

Maklad went on to marry a man who was granted asylum, which her legal team argued made her eligible for legal immigration status.

On July 9, Maklad was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers after arriving for what she believed was a routine “check-in” meeting and subsequently placed in “expedited removal proceedings” seeking to deport her from the U.S.

Thurston noted that Maklad had no criminal history and wasn’t considered a flight risk, and concluded that “the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in favor of Ms. Maklad.” Consequently she ordered her release from custody and said authorities are blocked from rearresting her “absent compliance with constitutional protections, which
include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances
necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing.”

Domestic Violence Funding

Friday also saw Senior District Judge William Smith of Rhode Island rule the Trump administration couldn’t impose fresh conditions on funds granted by the Violence Against Women Act due to the president’s Executive Order 14168 titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

This funding is distributed by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women.

Trump’s order stated that sex is a person’s “immutable biological classification as male or female,” and that the federal government should “prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce the rights and freedoms” associated with this position.

The Office on Violence Against Women updated its policy on what constitutes “out of scope activities,” and therefore should not be funded by its grants, after this order was issued in “approximately May 2025,” according to the court filing.

This added spending on “inculcating or promoting gender ideology as defined
in Executive Order 14168″ to the prohibited list.

The case was brought by a coalition of 17 nonprofit groups which argued adhering to President Trump’s position on gender was impeding their ability to assist victims of domestic violence.

Judge Smith backed the coalition’s position concluding that the fresh requirements imposed by the Trump administration “could result in the disruption” of services for victims of domestic and sexual violence.

What People Are Saying

In the California case Judge Thurston ruled: “Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re[1]arresting or re-detaining Ms. Maklad absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing.

“At any such hearing, the Government SHALL bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Maklad poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Ms. Maklad SHALL be allowed to have her counsel present.”

In his ruling Judge Smith wrote: “On the one hand, if the Court does not grant preliminary relief, then the Coalitions will face real and immediate irreparable harm from the challenged conditions, conditions which the Court has already concluded likely violate the APA.

“This could result in the disruption of important and, in some cases, life[1]saving services to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. On the other hand, if the Court grants preliminary relief, then the Office will simply have to consider grant applications and award funding as it normally does.”

What’s Next

It remains to be seen whether the Trump’s administration will seek to appeal either of Friday’s rulings.