Judges Increasingly Find Trump Administration’s Immigration Detentions Unlawful
Federal courts are seeing a surge in successful legal challenges to immigration detentions, raising questions about the administration’s legal basis for holding individuals and sparking concerns over due process.
As the number of immigrants detained across the U.S. reaches record highs under the Trump administration, a growing number of federal judges are ruling that some of those detentions were unlawful. A review of court records by inewsource reveals that judges in San Diego and other jurisdictions have found significant procedural errors and rights violations in the government’s handling of immigration cases.
These rulings stem from habeas corpus petitions – a constitutional right allowing individuals to challenge their detention – filed by immigrants held in detention centers throughout Southern California. Many argue, with the assistance of legal counsel, that they were arrested swiftly by immigration authorities without due process and subjected to mandatory detention unfairly.
The trend reflects a broader pattern of federal judges rejecting the government’s legal justifications for individual detentions as the Trump administration reverses long-standing protections for immigrants and overturns decades of established practice.
In a statement, the Department of Justice defended its actions as appropriate interpretations of the law, suggesting that immigration proceedings had previously been improperly adjudicated. A spokesperson asserted that the agency, alongside the president, would continue to enforce the law and protect the American public.
Among those released by judges are vulnerable asylum-seekers who entered the country legally at ports of entry, have no criminal history, and were detained after attending scheduled immigration court hearings. These include a woman fleeing Venezuela after a violent sexual assault by police, a U.S. ally abandoned in Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover, and a Nicaraguan teenager fearing retribution for opposing an oppressive regime, according to court filings submitted by their attorneys.
The rulings also extend to immigrants with decades-long ties to the country and criminal records. In at least two instances, judges identified “troubling” allegations against the Department of Homeland Security, finding in one case that the agency committed “blatant procedural errors” and “gravely violated” the petitioner’s rights.
The increasing reliance on habeas corpus is driven by concerns about overcrowding and unsanitary conditions within detention centers. So far this year, 16 people have died while in immigration detention nationwide. The Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego and the Imperial Regional Detention Center in El Centro collectively house approximately 2,000 individuals daily, according to recent ICE data.
Habeas Corpus: A Rising Legal Strategy
Kirsten Zittlau, an immigration attorney practicing in San Diego for seven years, filed her first habeas case in August and has since filed five more. “Habeas is becoming really necessary if you wanna get anybody out of custody, and that can sometimes be the most important factor in the case,” she explained. She added that release from custody allows individuals to better prepare their defense and secure legal representation.
Zittlau represents a Venezuelan woman who was granted parole – temporary protection from deportation – more than two years ago. Despite never receiving a notification email, the Trump administration revoked her parole and immigration authorities arrested her outside her immigration hearing in August. “You’re detaining people who did everything exactly right,” Zittlau stated, criticizing the government’s actions.
Judges Find Increasing Violations of Law
To date this year, judges in San Diego have fully or partially granted 26 habeas petitions. In some cases, this resulted in immediate release, while others mandated bond hearings. Only four petitions were outright denied, and 22 were dismissed, according to inewsource’s analysis.
The number of filings in the Southern District of California, encompassing San Diego and Imperial counties, has roughly doubled each month since July. This surge followed a memo issued that month by Todd Lyons, ICE’s acting director, outlining a reinterpretation of longstanding immigration law. The new interpretation rendered most immigrants who crossed the border unlawfully – even those with years of residency and no criminal record – ineligible for bond.
A subsequent ruling from the Board of Immigration Appeals, under the Department of Justice, upheld this position. Previously, migrants without significant criminal records and deemed not to be flight risks could be released on bond while their cases proceeded. Now, most individuals detained by immigration officials must remain in custody.
Suchita Mathur, a senior litigation attorney with the American Immigration Council, explained that this change is a key driver of increased immigration detention and the recent rulings against the government. “The government is trying to apply this statute to people who have been living in this country in some cases for many, many years. The federal courts are pushing back and saying that is not the correct reading of the statute,” she said.
The bond ruling is not the sole policy change facing legal challenges. Earlier this year, the Trump administration revoked parole statuses granted to immigrants who entered the U.S. through the Biden administration’s CBP One program. More than 900,000 immigrants entered the U.S. via CBP One after securing appointments with government officials. The Trump administration began notifying parolees in April that their status would be revoked.
Attorneys argued in habeas filings that these revocations were unlawful, citing a lack of individualized justification and violations of due process and federal procedure. In other cases, the government revoked release orders without providing adequate notice or opportunity for response, as legally required.
One case involved ICE officials failing to provide an arrest warrant for weeks after taking a man into custody. The warrant itself contained a discrepancy – issued on September 1 but bearing an ICE field office director’s signature dated July 14 – which the government could not explain in court. “After-the-fact determinations in an attempt to justify a noncitizen’s re-detention cannot cure the Government’s blatant procedural errors,” the judge wrote in the order.
Another case involved a Mexican man detained for seven months while officials attempted to deport him to a country other than Mexico. The Supreme Court has ruled that immigrants with final removal orders cannot be held for longer than six months if deportation is not demonstrably likely. ICE continued to detain the man after three countries refused to accept him, and officials admitted to not having worked on his case for two months, according to court filings.
While habeas petitions can secure release from detention, they do not resolve the underlying immigration proceedings. However, attorneys are increasingly embracing this strategy, and reports indicate a nationwide rise in successful petitions.
“It’s a strain on attorneys and the courts and the government, but most of all, it hurts the folks who are in detention for absolutely no reason,” Mathur concluded.
