BREAKING: Trump-Appointed Judge Delivers Major Blow to Biden Plan
A controversial initiative from the Biden administration that aimed to introduce “the first-ever federal staffing minimums for nursing homes” has been struck down by a federal judge in Texas.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk sided with nursing home operators, who argued that the proposed standards were unrealistic given the ongoing national shortage of healthcare workers. The ruling marks a significant defeat for the Biden administration—and one the Trump team is unlikely to challenge.
While Judge Kacsmaryk acknowledged the serious concerns surrounding nursing home staffing, infection control, and regulatory oversight, he ruled that the new policy was not a viable solution. According to Axios, his decision noted that the effort was “founded in laudable goals,” but ultimately exceeded the authority of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Under the proposed rule, nursing homes across the U.S. would have been required to maintain 24/7 registered nurse coverage and guarantee each resident received at least 33 minutes of RN care daily. Facilities in rural areas were granted an additional year to comply, with the mandate expected to take full effect in 2026.
Last year, a coalition of nursing home operators filed suit, claiming the rules were “impossible” to meet amid workforce shortages. They also challenged whether CMS even had the legal right to enforce such regulations, per Axios.
The initiative had backing from labor unions and senior advocacy groups, but the court’s rejection was welcomed by care facility leaders.
“This unrealistic staffing mandate threatened to close nursing homes and displace vulnerable seniors,” said Clif Porter, CEO of the American Health Care Association and National Center for Assisted Living, in a statement reported by Axios. “The court decision not only upholds the rule of law and balance of powers, but it protects access to care for our aging population.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major legal win by granting his request to reverse a lower court’s block on deporting Venezuelan nationals—some allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang—under a historic immigration law dating back to 1798.
The 5-4 ruling clears the way for the Trump administration to move forward on a key immigration priority.
The legal debate centered on the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime measure that allows for the rapid removal of certain foreign nationals during armed conflict. Before Trump, it had only been invoked three times: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, according to Fox News.
Government attorneys said lower court rulings had “rebuffed” their efforts to carry out essential national security policies and argued that overturning the decision was necessary “to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations.”
“Today’s a bad day to be a terrorist in the United States of America,” said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in a video posted to X. She added that the president “was correct in using his authority on using the Alien Enemies Act to deport terrorists out of this country.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi slammed a “activist judge” in Washington, D.C., claiming that the individual “does not have the jurisdiction to seize control of President Trump’s authority to conduct foreign policy and keep the American people safe.” She hailed the high court’s decision as a “victory for the rule of law.”
“The Department of Justice will continue to fight in court to make America safe again,” Bondi said in a post-ruling statement.