These episodes underscore how judicial oversight of executive power has increasingly intersected with identity-based attacks, placing Indian American judges at the center of a deeply polarized political battle
PRAVASISAMWAD.COM
An Indian American federal judge has emerged as the latest flashpoint in an increasingly bitter clash between the judiciary and supporters of US President Donald Trump, highlighting how legal rulings that stall Trump-era policies are often followed by intense, and sometimes xenophobic, backlash.
Arun Subramanian, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, recently issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration’s move to freeze nearly $10 billion in federal funding for childcare and social services across five Democratic-led states. The order came after attorneys general from California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York challenged the funding suspension, arguing that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lacked legal authority to halt the disbursements and had encroached on Congress’s exclusive control over federal spending.
-
The administration had justified the freeze by citing alleged large-scale fraud in certain child care subsidy programs, particularly in Minnesota, where investigations have uncovered schemes involving immigrant-linked networks misusing public funds
-
President Trump framed the move as part of his “America First” agenda, portraying the funding as wasteful spending drained by fraud and abuse.
In his order, Judge Subramanian said the states had demonstrated “good cause” for emergency relief, pointing to the likelihood of success in their legal challenge, the risk of irreparable harm to vulnerable families, and the broader public interest. While the ruling did not assess the fraud allegations themselves, it imposed a 14-day pause on the funding freeze to allow for more detailed legal arguments. Legal experts noted that such reasoning is typical for temporary restraining orders, which are designed to prevent immediate harm rather than resolve the core dispute.
The decision triggered a wave of hostile reactions from MAGA-aligned voices online. Critics labeled Subramanian a “Biden appointee” and a “DEI hire,” while others resorted to overtly xenophobic rhetoric, questioning his legitimacy and citizenship despite his American status. Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller also criticized the ruling, arguing that it forces taxpayers to fund fraudulent welfare programs.
Subramanian is not alone. Several other Indian-American judges have faced similar attacks after issuing rulings unfavorable to Trump or his policy agenda. Judge Amit Mehta drew sustained criticism after ruling that Trump’s “Stop the Steal” speech could plausibly be interpreted as a call to action before the January 6 Capitol riot. Judge Vince Chhabria faced backlash for blocking the use of federal health data in immigration enforcement, while Massachusetts-based Judge Indira Talwani has repeatedly halted immigration and welfare-related measures during Trump’s second term.
