A judge in Boston will weigh pumping the brakes on a controversial Trump administration policy of removing migrants to countries where they have no prior connection.

Advocates for men targeted for deportation under President Donald Trump’s invocation of wartime powers against a Venezuelan gang are trying to move their legal fight to Manhattan, even though the Supreme Court expected it would play out in Texas.

The legislation is part of an escalating Republican campaign to take aim at judges who have moved to halt some of President Trump’s executive orders.

U.S. judges in Texas and New York dealt blows on Wednesday to President Donald Trump's effort to revive deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members under a wartime law after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a nationwide ban on such removals.

Federal judges in New York and Texas on Wednesday issued orders to temporarily halt the deportation of Venezuelan plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act – a wartime authority the administration has invoked to deport alleged gang members without due process.

Attorney General Pam Bondi relied on an increasingly common assertion: that the judge was “unelected” and denying the will of voters who put the president in office.

The Supreme Court this week allowed the administration to resume deportations, saying a case should have been filed in Texas. But the A.C.L.U. said other detainees are being held in the jail of a small New York town.

Its ruling in a key deportation case allows the administration to fight in more favorable jurisdictions but actually appeared to curtail Trump’s claims to power.

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court lifted a lower-court order that directed the Trump administration to reinstate about 16,000 federal employees it fired, handing the White House the third victory in a row as it seeks the justices’ emergency action to stop district judges from slowing its policies.

The Supreme Court is handing the Trump administration a series of early victories as its policy agenda faces legal hurdles in the lower courts, signaling that the justices are increasingly willing to push back on overly broad procedural rulings from trial judges,