The Department of Homeland Security runs a recurring social media feature called “Worst of the Worst,” cataloging alleged crimes of deported immigrants to justify its enforcement actions.
Critics argue the campaign serves primarily as a public relations exercise, distracting from the broader reality of DHS deportation activity targeting individuals with clean records.
Last Thursday, DHS General Counsel James Percival launched a new extension of the campaign titled “Worst of the Worst, District Judge Edition,” directly targeting sitting members of the federal judiciary.
Across four separate posts, Percival publicly named four federal judges, an escalation that legal observers say represents an unprecedented attack on judicial independence by a senior government lawyer.
Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois was named for temporarily preserving deportation protections for Burmese immigrants while related litigation continued through the courts.
Judge Allison Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts was similarly identified for preserving deportation protections for Somali immigrants pending the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings.
Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland, who presided over the high-profile Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, was also included in Percival’s posts targeting members of the federal bench.
“Remember Kilmar Abrego Garcia?” Percival wrote, adding “He is still in the country” as what appeared to be a pointed criticism of the judicial outcome in that case.
The framing glossed over the fact that the administration has already admitted it accidentally sent Abrego Garcia to an El Salvadoran slave prison, a significant omission in Percival’s public attack.
Judge Hernan Vera of the Central District of California was the fourth judge named, cited for handling litigation over how DHS responded to protests related to immigration enforcement operations.
The move comes as recorded threats against the federal judiciary have reached 564, raising serious concerns about the potential consequences of senior officials publicly vilifying sitting judges by name.
Legal experts have warned that campaigns targeting individual judges by name, carried out by senior government lawyers, risk undermining the constitutional separation of powers at a critical moment for the rule of law.