The post singled out four federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents and summarized several of their recent rulings involving immigration enforcement and deportation policies. Percival also identified which president nominated each judge, arguing that the decisions have repeatedly interfered with the administration’s ability to carry out immigration law.
Among those mentioned was Judge Matthew Kennelly, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, who halted DHS efforts to end deportation protections for Burmese nationals while litigation continues.
Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, was also included after issuing a ruling preserving protections for Somali nationals despite the administration pointing to Supreme Court precedent supporting its authority to end the program.
Percival’s thread also criticized Judge Paula Xinis, another Obama appointee, for ordering the release of illegal alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia while preventing his removal, even though DHS has maintained it was not preparing to deport him.
The fourth judge named was Biden appointee Judge Hernan Vera, whose rulings have limited how Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers may respond during confrontations with anti-ICE activists. According to DHS, Vera characterized demonstrators as legal observers while criticizing the department’s defense of federal officers.
Although the thread sharply criticized the judges’ decisions, it did not include threats or personal attacks against any member of the judiciary. Instead, Percival argued that a relatively small group of judges has repeatedly issued rulings that obstruct the administration’s immigration agenda.
The online criticism did not go unanswered.
During an appearance Friday on the Legal AF podcast, federal Judges Esther Salas and Beth Bloom condemned Percival’s comments and argued that publicly highlighting judges in this manner creates unnecessary risks.
Judge Bloom suggested the posts were intended to pressure judges who may hear future immigration cases.
Judge Salas went even further by recalling the horrific 2020 attack that claimed the life of her son, Daniel Salas, after a gunman came to her family’s home posing as a delivery driver.
Salas referenced Roy Den Hollander, the attorney responsible for the attack, while arguing that public campaigns targeting judges can contribute to dangerous consequences.
She asserted that Percival’s conduct effectively placed judges in harm’s way by drawing attention to individual members of the federal bench.
Critics of Salas’ remarks, however, argue that comparing an online discussion of judicial rulings to a targeted act of violence crosses a line.
Supporters of the administration note that neither Salas nor Bloom disputed the factual accuracy of the cases cited in Percival’s thread.
Instead, they contend the judges focused primarily on the broader implications of publicly criticizing sitting judges rather than challenging the substance of the rulings themselves.
DHS has maintained that Percival’s posts simply summarized publicly available judicial decisions and explained how those rulings affected immigration enforcement.
According to the department, reviewing and criticizing court decisions falls well within the bounds of public debate and government transparency.
The dispute also arrives amid growing Republican frustration over nationwide injunctions issued against Trump administration policies.
Conservatives have argued for months that a relatively small number of federal district judges have exercised outsized influence over national policy through sweeping injunctions affecting the entire country.
One of the most prominent figures in that debate has been Judge James Boasberg, whose handling of multiple Trump-related cases has drawn repeated criticism from Republicans.
In response, lawmakers have introduced legislation aimed at limiting the authority of individual district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
Sen. Eric Schmitt introduced the BOASBERG Act, while House Republicans previously passed the No Rogue Rulings Act, both designed to curb what supporters describe as judicial overreach.
Percival has shown little indication that he intends to retreat from the controversy.
Speaking after the criticism intensified, he argued that the public deserves to know when a small group of judges repeatedly issues decisions that significantly affect federal immigration policy.
Fox News reported that Percival dismissed the backlash over his thread as “the absolute absurdity of the liberal media response.”
The confrontation underscores a widening divide between the executive branch and portions of the federal judiciary as immigration litigation continues to dominate the administration’s second-term agenda.
With additional legal challenges expected in the months ahead, disputes over both judicial authority and public criticism of judges are likely to remain at the forefront of the national political debate.
