Um… It Doesn’t Work That Way!

This post is not about a court ruling but the reply of a high government official.

I have had a lot of interaction with lawyers because of when I was the executive director of the Connecticut TransAdvocacy Coalition, but it began long before that (I even submitted amicus curiae briefs for a couple of cases). It began back at a First Event conference in Boston, where I attended a workshop on “Know Your Rights” run by a lawyer. When asked a question, he began with “… in my opinion…” They never said yes or no, just “… in my opinion…”

Fast forward to moderating a panel at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. On the panel were the head of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, a senior lawyer from the commission, and the lawyer from GLAD who helped us with the non-discrimination legislation. And you know what? Even the commissioner started her answer with “… in my opinion…” Do you know why? It’s because a judge has the last word. It is what he says at the end that becomes law… well, er… that is… until a bigger judge says otherwise.

So when I hear a DHS Assistant Secretary saying otherwise, it kind of makes me wonder.

“Trump administration can't require states to cooperate with immigration agents to get FEMA grants, judge rules

CBS News

By Joe Walsh

September 24, 2025

A federal judge ruled Wednesday it is unconstitutional for the Trump administration to require states to cooperate with immigration enforcement in order to get some Federal Emergency Management Agency grants — a legal setback in the administration's push to revoke funding to "sanctuary" cities and states. 

U.S. District Judge William Smith of Rhode Island ruled in favor of 20 mostly Democratic states that had sued FEMA, accusing the administration of "holding critical emergency preparedness and response funding hostage" unless they assist immigration agents.”

And about this ruling: 

“DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin asserted in a statement that cities and states that "break the law and prevent us from arresting criminal illegal aliens should not receive federal funding."

"The Trump Administration is committed to restoring the rule of law. No lawsuit, not this one or any other, is going to stop us from doing that," she wrote.”

Stop right there! "The Trump Administration is committed to restoring the rule of law…” The judge ruled otherwise! It is the judge’s view that is the legal one. Not yours, Ms. Secretary! You don’t like it… appeal! She didn't say that they will appeal, she didn't say that they will abide by the ruling just "No lawsuit, not this one or any other, is going to stop us from doing that..."! That sound awful defiant to me.

Did she just say that she is going to ignore a court order? What message does the Trump administration send with this reply? That they are above the law?