Johnson Law Office US

07/07/2026

The USA is in deep trouble with God

A first-of-its-kind ProPublica analysis found that children who entered the U.S. by themselves are being detained and removed at about three times the rate they were during the final years of the first Trump presidency.

07/03/2026

Texas immigration be aware:

The sweeping Texas state immigration enforcement is in effect. The landmark law—widely known as Senate Bill 4 grants local and state police the authority to arrest individuals “suspected” of entering the country unlawfully and allows state judges to issue removal orders.After a prolonged legal seesaw and various injunctions, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the legislation to take effect in its entirety.Additionally, a related immigration measure, Texas Senate Bill 8, is also active. This law mandates that county sheriffs operating local jails collaborate directly with federal authorities and carry out immigration enforcement duties under the 287(g) program.

there is no traditional federal due process hearing or formal immigration court proceeding built into the initial arrest and removal mechanism of Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB 4).

Because SB 4 treats unauthorized entry and reentry as state criminal offenses rather than federal civil immigration violations, the law explicitly bypasses the federal immigration court system.

State Criminal Proceedings (Not Immigration Hearings)When an individual is arrested by local or state police, they enter the Texas state criminal justice system rather than federal custody.

Right to Counsel: Because it is a state criminal prosecution, individuals have a right to a court-appointed criminal defense attorney if they cannot afford one. HOWEVER… THERE IS No Court-Appointed Immigration Attorney: There is no right to a free, public immigration attorney to argue asylum or federal protections.

State Magistrates and "Orders to Return"Instead of a federal immigration judge evaluating a noncitizen’s case, a Texas state magistrate or judge handles the case.

The Removal Process: If a magistrate determines there is probable cause for the arrest, the judge can directly issue a written "order to return" discharging the person and requiring them to cross back into the foreign nation (typically Mexico) from which they entered.

Bypassing Federal Protections: Civil rights organizations and legal experts note that this rapid state process completely bypasses standard federal due process protections, such as the right to apply for asylum, seek a withholding of removal, or request protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

HERE’s THE REAL ISSUE OF IT ALL:

Pending Claims Ignored: Under SB 4, state prosecutions and removals are generally not paused or canceled even if the individual has an active, pending immigration application with the federal government.

EITHER VOLUNTEER TO LEAVE OR FACE A FELONY!

The "Agreement to Return" LoopholeA state judge can dismiss the criminal charges early if the arrested person agrees to the removal order. If they accept this, they waive further local proceedings and are escorted by Texas law enforcement to a port of entry. If they refuse to comply with the order or refuse to leave, the offense escalates into a high-level state felony.

First-Time Offender PenaltiesJail Time: Punishable by up to 180 days (6 months) in a local or county jail, $2000 fine, Alternative Resolution: A state judge or magistrate has the authority to drop the misdemeanor charges entirely if the individual agrees to voluntarily return to the foreign nation from which they entered.

YOU MUST DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE BEFORE YOU GET ARRESTED. CONACT AN IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY ASAP! YOUR FUTURE AND YOUR FAMILY DEPENDS ON IT!

04/28/2026

Small victories add up 🙏

Second Circuit issued a published decision today effectively striking down Matter of Hurtado. Judge Bianco, a Trump appointee, wrote the opinion.

"On appeal, the government argues Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). We disagree. The plain text of both
Sections 1225(b)(2)(A) and 1226(a) make clear that only one applies to a noncitizen like Petitioner: Section 1226(a). Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to noncitizens, such as Petitioner, who are present in the United States after entering the country without inspection and admission, and who were not apprehended at or near the border at the time of entry.

This result is dictated by the plain text of these provisions, and further confirmed by the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose. It likewise comports with the Supreme Court’s established understanding of Sections 1225 and 1226. It reflects Executive Branch practice over thirty years and across five Presidential administrations. Moreover, it explains why Congress has never
challenged that settled practice despite making numerous amendments to the immigration laws.

Finally, even if the government’s newfound interpretation of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) were plausible—and it is not—we would nonetheless reject it based on our obligation to construe these statutes in a manner that would avoid the serious constitutional questions attendant to what would be the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of
noncitizens.

Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner’s detention is governed by Section 1226(a), not Section 1225(b)(2)(A), and we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of the writ of habeas corpus.

Judge Cabranes concurs in the judgment and opinion of the Court and files a separate opinion."

04/27/2026

We must fight the good fight against corruption!

Judges are ordering an unprecedented number of people deported after coming under significant pressure from the administration to do so or risk losing their jobs.