This week’s federal policy round-up tracks federal policy developments impacting immigrant rights, voting access, health care, and free speech.
Immigrant Rights Under Threat: Court Rulings and Deportation Orders Raise Alarm
Federal immigration policy is shifting rapidly, with new rulings threatening protections and targeting advocates. A federal appeals court has allowed the Trump administration to continue to revoke humanitarian parole for over 430,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Individuals, who entered legally with work authorization, now face loss of status, deportation, and family separation. The ruling expands executive power to end protections en masse, a break from past case-by-case reviews, fueling fear, instability, and discouraging future applications. Though the decision may still be appealed, it underscores how fragile legal status can be and the need for communities to stay engaged in defending immigrant rights.
Surveillance and Suppression: Federal Threats to Free Speech
The administration’s continuing reliance on immigration and funding powers to curb Palestinian human rights advocacy is now also being extended to other forms of dissent. This week, an immigration judge issued a deportation order against Mahmoud Khalil, a U.S. permanent resident and Columbia University student, citing alleged misrepresentations on his green card application. While the deportation order is serious, it cannot be enforced right now because a federal district court has blocked Khalil’s deportation or detention while his civil rights case is ongoing. This case highlights the limits of immigration court authority and raises broader concerns about due process, free speech, and the use of immigration law to target pro-Palestinian advocates. Even with temporary protections in place, the threat of deportation sends a chilling message to immigrant communities and those speaking out for justice.
Universities, which have already been subject to federal pressure, are also being drawn further into these efforts. UC Berkeley disclosed the names of roughly 160 students, faculty, and staff to the Trump administration in response to a federal investigation into alleged antisemitism. The individuals targeted were involved in speech and activism opposing the genocide in Palestine. The administration demanded unredacted records, raising concerns about legal, immigration, and professional consequences for those named. It is unknown how many other universities have complied with similar requests.
Having demonstrated its ability to target pro-Palestinian speech, the administration is now extending similar tactics more broadly. Following the violent assassination of Charlie Kirk, the president, vice president, attorney general, and other senior officials, blamed the “radical left” for fostering violence and announced threatened actions against civil society, immigrants, and media outlets. These include proposals to designate nonprofits and media organizations as domestic terrorists, revoke the tax-exempt status of philanthropic foundations, launch broad investigations into advocacy networks, and revoke visas or green cards over speech critical of Kirk. Federal agencies referenced in these threats include the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Communications Commission. While many of these measures face significant constitutional and statutory barriers, including First Amendment protections and procedural requirements, their announcement alone creates pressure on nonprofits, foundations, and individuals. Corporations have already begun limiting speech in response, and the rhetoric signals a broader effort to discourage criticism and intimidate civil society actors. The episode demonstrates how restrictions on one category of speech make it easier to justify suppressing others, with long-term risks for free expression and advocacy.
Protecting Our Vote: DOJ Lawsuits and Voter Roll Challenges
Federal efforts to reshape voter access are intensifying. The Justice Department has sued Oregon and Maine for refusing to hand over full electronic copies of their voter rolls and related records—part of a broader push targeting over two dozen states. While the administration argues it’s enforcing federal law by identifying ineligible voters, officials in Oregon and Maine argue the demand threatens privacy and could undermine election integrity. These lawsuits raise alarm bells for communities already vulnerable to disenfranchisement.
Large-scale voter roll purges often remove eligible voters—especially from immigrant, low-income, and minority communities—creating real barriers to participation. The outcome of these cases will shape how much control the federal government can exert over state voter data and how secure our access to the ballot remains.
This fight for voter rights is also playing out in the courts. In a major victory, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a North Carolina law that made it a crime for people with felony convictions to vote—even if they didn’t know it was illegal. While a 2023 update limited prosecutions to knowing violations, the older version remained on the books and disproportionately harmed Black voters. The court’s decision eliminates legal risk for individuals who unknowingly voted while ineligible and affirms that unintentional actions should not be criminalized.
Health Access at Risk: Medicaid Cuts and Legal Battles
More underserved patients continue losing health care. A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration can block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood while legal challenges continue—reversing a lower court’s decision. The cuts stem from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which targets providers that received over $800,000 in Medicaid funds in 2023, even if those funds supported non-abortion services. As a result, over 1.1 million patients—many of them low-income or disabled—could lose access to care, and up to 200 clinics are at risk of closure. This ruling threatens essential health services in communities that already face barriers to care and underscores how political attacks on providers like Planned Parenthood directly harm those with the fewest options