Since October, more than 400 federal judges have ruled at least 4,421 times that the Trump administration is detaining immigrants unlawfully. The administration keeps detaining them anyway.
The decisions amount to a sweeping legal rebuke of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown—a cascade of rulings from Republican and Democratic appointees alike finding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is jailing people in violation of federal law. Yet the practice has not stopped.
“It is appalling that the Government insists that this Court should redefine or completely disregard the current law as it is clearly written,” U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston of West Virginia, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote last week in ordering the release of a Venezuelan detainee.
His frustration is widely shared.
The Numbers
A Reuters review of court records found that immigrants have filed more than 20,200 federal lawsuits demanding their release since Trump took office. In at least 4,421 of those cases, judges ruled ICE was holding people illegally.
The rulings center on a fundamental legal question: whether immigrants already living in the U.S. are entitled to bond hearings while they pursue their cases in immigration court. For nearly three decades, the answer was yes. The Trump administration says otherwise.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the administration is “working to lawfully deliver on President Trump’s mandate to enforce federal immigration law.”
But the numbers tell a different story. ICE detention has surged to about 68,000 people this month—a 75% increase since Trump took office last year. And as the detainee population has grown, so has the flood of lawsuits.
‘Driving While Brown’
Joseph Thomas, an 18-year-old high school student from Venezuela, was arrested during a traffic stop in Wisconsin in late December. He was riding with his father, Elias Thomas, on the father’s Walmart delivery route.
Both are asylum seekers who entered the U.S. in August 2023. Both are authorized to work. Their lawyer, Carrie Peltier, said they were stopped for “driving while brown.”
Within a month, two judges ordered their release.
Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz—another Bush appointee—ruled that Joseph had been detained illegally, citing a “lack of any evidence that ICE had a warrant when it detained Joseph while he was a passenger in his father’s car.”
U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, ruled that Elias was entitled to a bond hearing, rejecting the government’s interpretation of the law as one that courts in his district have “repeatedly considered and rejected.”
Joseph is now taking classes online, afraid to return to school in person.
A Five-Year-Old in the Driveway
Within the span of a few days in January, lawyers filed habeas petitions for:
· Liam Conejo, a five-year-old Ecuadorean boy detained in the driveway of his Minnesota home
· A Ukrainian man with a valid temporary humanitarian status, detained on his way to work as a cable technician
· A Salvadoran man married to a U.S. citizen and father of a 3-year-old autistic child
· An Eritrean hospital worker with refugee status, arrested after letting agents into his apartment complex
· A Venezuelan man arrested after dropping his daughter off at school
None had criminal records.
Each was being held indefinitely by ICE. Each filed a lawsuit demanding release. Each case now joins the backlog of more than 20,000.
‘Rogue Judges’ and Violated Orders
The Justice Department has been forced to divert more than 700 attorneys from criminal prosecution to handle the flood of habeas cases. Five of those lawyers each appear on the dockets of more than 1,000 cases.
The legal logjam has led to an extraordinary pattern: judges order people released; the government keeps them locked up anyway.
In Minnesota last month, Chief Judge Schiltz found that the government had violated 96 orders in 76 cases. The U.S. Attorney there acknowledged an “enormous burden” on his office.
In New York, U.S. District Judge Nusrat Choudhury, a Biden appointee, wrote this month that ICE violated two “clear and unambiguous orders” by flying a man to New Mexico for detention while falsely claiming he was in New Jersey and could be brought to a court hearing.
Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre defended the administration, saying it “is complying with court orders and fully enforcing federal immigration law.”
Then she added: “If rogue judges followed the law in adjudicating cases and respected the government’s obligation to properly prepare cases, there wouldn’t be an ‘overwhelming’ habeas caseload or concern over DHS following orders.”
What Habeas Corpus Means
Habeas corpus—Latin for “you shall have the body”—emerged in English courts in the 1300s. It is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It provides a legal recourse for people the government has detained unlawfully.
The principle is simple: if the government locks you up, you have the right to ask a judge whether that detention is legal. If the judge says it’s not, the government must let you go.
But in immigration courts, that principle is being tested as never before. The administration has abandoned a nearly three-decade-old interpretation of federal law that allowed immigrants to seek bond. Instead, it argues it has the authority to detain people indefinitely—even after courts rule otherwise.
A conservative appeals court in New Orleans last week gave the administration a victory, reversing rulings that had led to the release of two Mexican men. The men remain free for now, but the decision signals a potential shift in how courts will view these cases.
Other appeals courts are set to take up the issue in the coming weeks.
The Human Cost
Judy Rall is the U.S. citizen wife of a Venezuelan detainee who has spent almost a year at the Bluebonnet detention center in Texas. She was quoted upwards of $5,000 to file a habeas petition—money she didn’t have.
Her husband has no criminal record. The government has alleged, without providing evidence, that he has links to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. He has not been charged with any crime. Their immigration case, based on their marriage, is pending. The government has declined to release him while it is adjudicating.
This month, a lawyer offered to take the habeas case for free.
“Our home burnt down, and I had told them I needed him to come help,” Rall said. “I assume that is the reason.”
The Takeaway
More than 4,400 times since October, federal judges have told the Trump administration it is jailing people illegally. The administration has not changed its policy. It has not stopped jailing people. It has not released most of those ordered to be freed.
Instead, it has called the judges “rogue” and continued detaining immigrants under a legal theory courts have repeatedly rejected.
The Constitution guarantees the right to challenge unlawful detention. That right, for thousands of immigrants, now depends on whether they can find a lawyer, file a lawsuit, and wait—sometimes for months—while the government decides whether to comply with a judge’s order.
For Joseph Thomas, the 18-year-old high school student, relief came in weeks. For Judy Rall’s husband, it has been a year and counting.
For the more than 20,000 others who have filed lawsuits since Trump took office, the question is not whether the law is on their side. It’s whether that matters anymore.
