In a decision that helps her husband’s real estate company, Biden chose federal judge Jennifer Thurston to stop Border Patrol officers from making unwarranted arrests of illegal immigrants. Investigative journalist Laura Loomer made this enormous conflict of interest public, showing how the judge’s ruling could benefit her family monetarily while undercutting border enforcement practices implemented under Trump.
Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks Border Enforcement
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston recently issued a controversial injunction preventing Customs and Border Protection agents in Eastern California from stopping illegal aliens without a warrant or proving they are a flight risk. The ruling directly undermines “Operation Return to Sender,” which was part of President Trump’s comprehensive efforts to remove illegal aliens and secure America’s borders against unlawful entry.
WHOA: Laura Loomer Uncovers a Massive Conflict of Interest Involving Race-Baiting Federal Judge Who Ordered Border Agents to NOT Detain Illegal Aliens Without a Warrant https://t.co/cmc1HHOzOE
— Steve Ferguson (@lsferguson) May 2, 2025
Thurston’s decision requires Border Patrol agents to report every 60 days on arrests made without warrants, essentially handcuffing law enforcement from doing their jobs effectively. Her ruling emphasized that individuals should not be approached based solely on race, a directive that border security experts argue makes practical enforcement nearly impossible in high-traffic crossing areas.
Conflict of Interest Exposed
Investigative journalist Laura Loomer uncovered a significant conflict of interest that explains Thurston’s anti-enforcement stance. Thurston’s husband works as a real estate broker in California with numerous clients who are illegal aliens, creating a direct financial interest in preventing their detention and deportation.
Judge Boasberg ruled against President Trump deporting this.
Remove this activist judge. pic.twitter.com/WAnef8PWqV
— Sheri™ (@FFT1776) March 28, 2025
Federal judicial guidelines explicitly require judges to recuse themselves if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned or if their spouse has a financial interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Despite these precise ethical requirements, Thurston did not disclose her husband’s business connections to illegal immigrants when issuing her ruling that protects his client base.
Undermining Border Security
The ruling effectively dismantles a critical component of border enforcement strategy by requiring judicial warrants before agents can detain suspected illegal immigrants. Border Patrol officials have warned that obtaining warrants for each detention is practically impossible given the volume of illicit crossings, and would essentially render enforcement ineffective across large sections of the border.
Donald Trump Jr. responded to Loomer’s investigation by stating he was unsurprised by the conflict of interest, highlighting the pattern of judicial activism against border security measures. The case represents a growing concern among border security advocates that activist judges with personal conflicts are systematically undermining enforcement efforts while benefiting financially from continued illegal immigration.
Legal experts note that Thurston’s ruling contradicts longstanding Supreme Court precedent giving border agents broader authority within 100 miles of international boundaries. The ruling’s timing, coming as border states struggle with record numbers of illegal crossings, has raised additional questions about politically motivated judicial interventions in immigration enforcement policies.