See The Link Between The Two?

A gay asylum-seeker was granted asylum by a federal judge but then he disappears... POOF! Gone.

Massachusetts federal judge orders gay asylum-seeker deported under Trump returned to U.S.

“The Court finds that the public benefits from living in a country where rules are followed and where promises are kept,” Judge Brian E. Murphy wrote.

The Advocate

Christopher Wiggins

May 23 2025

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the U.S. government to return a gay Guatemalan asylum-seeker who was wrongfully deported under a new Trump policy, sharply criticizing immigration officials for misleading the court and flouting due process.

In a ruling issued late Friday, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy granted a preliminary injunction in D.V.D. v. DHS, siding with a plaintiff known as O.C.G., who had been granted protection from deportation after testifying about the brutal violence he endured as a gay man in Guatemala. Just two days later, and without warning, Trump administration officials put him on a bus to Mexico—a country where he had previously been kidnapped and raped—and ultimately sent back to Guatemala, where he remains in hiding.

“This case presents... the banal horror of a man being wrongfully loaded onto a bus and sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped,” Murphy wrote.

Hey we don't need no judges, we don't need any courts... we do what our golden leader tells us to do!

In ordering O.C.G.’s return, the court noted the deportation occurred despite a judge’s ruling barring his removal to Guatemala and assurances in immigration court that he would not be sent to Mexico. DHS officers ignored O.C.G.’s pleas to contact his attorney and denied him any opportunity to object. The judge dismissed government arguments minimizing the harm, saying the man faces not only the risk of death but the loss “of all that makes life worth living.”

Now I want you look at provisions in the budget bill that was passed early Saturday morning...

Newsweek reports, 

Aprovision "hidden" in the sweeping budget bill that passed the U.S. House on Thursday seeks to limit the ability of courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—from enforcing their orders.

"No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued," the provision in the bill, which is more than 1,000 pages long, says.

The provision "would make most existing injunctions—in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases, and others—unenforceable," Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Newsweek. "It serves no purpose but to weaken the power of the federal courts."

Does it all begin to make sense?

A) Trump sings an illegal order.

B) A judge orders them to stop.

C) A government official ignores the order.

D) A judge orders them held in contempt of court.

E) The government ignores the contempt and give the judge the middle finger.