Hundreds of judges reject Trump’s mandatory detention policy, with no end in sight

Federal judges are increasingly exasperated by the Trump administration’s effort to lock up nearly everyone facing deportation proceedings — a draconian expansion of decades-old policies that hundreds of courts have rejected as illegal or unconstitutional. More than 300 federal judges, including appointees of every president since Ronald Reagan, have now rebuffed the administration’s six-month-old effort to expand its so-called “mandatory detention” policy, according to a POLITICO analysis of court dockets from across the country. Those judges have ordered immigrants’ release or the opportunity for bond hearings in more than 1,600 cases. 00:01 02:00 Read More And dozens more federal judges have ordered the administration to release immigrants yanked off the street without due process or held for prolonged periods even though no country has agreed to accept them. The legal rejections are so frequent that one judge compared the Trump administration’s effort to Sisyphus rolling a rock uphill. Others have become so familiar with the cases that they’ve begun issuing terse, carbon-copy rulings to dispense with the deluge. Immigrant advocates say the administration’s win-loss record is beside the point; the goal appears to be making the process so onerous that many choose to give up rather than face weeks or months of detention. Despite the overwhelming legal consensus, there has been no successful nationwide block on the policy. That’s partly because most of the cases are filed on an emergency basis by individuals in the hours after they’re arrested — with little time to assemble large groups that could mount a broad challenge. In recent weeks, the judges’ conclusions have become increasingly urgent, describing shocking mistreatment and inhumanity as thousands of people — the majority not charged with any crime — are abruptly ripped from family members and locked up in squalid detention centers, even if they have lived in the country for decades. Many have been arrested while attending required immigration court proceedings or check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that they had attended for decades. “This district has been flooded with petitions for relief with similar stories — families ripped apart, and people who pose no danger or risk of fleeing imprisoned with no end in sight, flown to far off detention centers for reasons that the government lawyers who appear in court themselves can’t explain,” U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian wrote in a Dec. 23 opinion. “And that doesn’t account for the countless people picked up off the streets who don’t have lawyers and who can’t effectively seek relief.” “No one disputes that the government may, consistent with the law’s requirements, pursue the removal of people who are in this country unlawfully. But the way we treat others matters,” the New York-based Biden appointee continued. Subramanian’s ruling is one of hundreds issued by judges since July 8, when ICE revised its policies to conclude that virtually anyone in the country unlawfully was subject to detention — without the possibility of release on bond — while awaiting deportation proceedings. That decision reversed 30 years of practice by federal immigration authorities, who prioritized detention only for people deemed to be dangerous or likely to flee. In recent weeks, the legal challenges have surged, with more than 100 new lawsuits filed daily, a figure that has steadily increased. Courts overwhelmingly reject the policy A POLITICO review of thousands of federal dockets reveals the starkly lopsided results for the Trump administration: While 308 judges have ruled against the administration’s mass detention policy — ordering release or bond hearings in more than 1,600 cases — just 14 judges, including 11 appointed by President Donald Trump himself, have sided with the administration’s position. Even Trump’s appointees have rejected the administration’s view; 33 have ruled against its position on mass detention. The rejections have come predominantly from judges appointed by Joe Biden (103), Barack Obama (97) and Bill Clinton (27). In addition to the 33 Trump-appointed judges, the list includes 48 appointed by Presidents George. W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. And the numbers are likely to continue surging until federal appeals courts — or perhaps the Supreme Court — settle the matter conclusively, at least in large swathes of the country. The administration has appealed dozens of its defeats, but appellate courts are unlikely to resolve the matter for months, even on expedited timelines. The Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently signaled that it opposed the administration’s view on mandatory detention, but the ruling was primarily about the administration’s handling of a class action lawsuit dating to 2018. Department of Homeland Security officials have argued that they’re exercising maximal detention authority that other administrations simply chose not to employ. They say it’s an antidote to years of “catch-and-release” policies by the Biden administration, a practice in which immigrants crossing the border were briefly detained and then paroled into the country. “Regarding decisions from federal courts about mandatory detention, judicial activists … have been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court on these questions,” Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. “ICE has the law and the facts on its side, and it adheres to all court decisions until it ultimately gets them shot down by the highest court in the land.” What does the law require? At issue is a tension in the complex and tangled U.S. immigration laws that has vexed courts for decades. Federal law mandates detention for immigrants deemed to be “applicants for admission” to the U.S. who enter the country illegally; this has long been interpreted by courts and ICE to apply to people who only recently crossed the border. Watch: The Conversation Play Video20:23 The top 5 interview moments of 2025 | The Conversation Immigrants who have lived in the country for decades, on the other hand, have been subject to detention only if they are deemed a danger to society or a flight risk. And they have been afforded the right to bond hearings before immigration judges — executive branch officials tasked with adjudicating immigration cases, a system distinct from the federal judiciary. But ICE now contends that immigrants living in the country for years should still be considered “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention, even if no previous administration agreed. In October, the Board of Immigration Appeals — the executive branch body that oversees immigration judges — sided with the Trump administration’s view of mass detention, effectively requiring detention for immigrants targeted by the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. That decision has prompted a furious rush to federal courts. The flood of litigation that included a nationwide class action that appeared poised to resolve the matter. But ambiguities in that ruling — issued by U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes, a Biden appointee based in California — led the Trump administration to continue attempting to lock up most deportees without bond. Some Trump appointees side with him A handful of judges have recently sided with the administration’s view. U.S. District Judge Jodi Dishman, a Trump appointee from Oklahoma, said the vast majority of courts were going too far in concluding that immigrants living in the U.S. were no longer “applicants for admission.” And she questioned how judges were drawing the line. “Is two years of unadmitted residence long enough? Three? How far must an alien travel from the border? 50 miles? 100?” Dishman wondered. “If an alien has been in the interior a short time but resides far away from the border, can the distance make up for a short duration?” Even as she sided with the administration, Dishman acknowledged the consequences of her ruling: “The Court’s first duty is to the rule of law, and to misplace that duty would undermine our system of ordered liberty. The Court takes no solace in the human realities on the other end of its pen.” Another Trump appointee, Brian Buescher, recently ruled that even the nationwide class action granted by Sykes doesn’t prevent the administration from implementing its expanded detention policy. That class action, the Nebraska-based judge wrote, was beyond Sykes’ authority to issue. “The fact that a District Judge in California interpreted the law differently … does not somehow usurp or overrule all other judges in the United States Federal Courts, like this one, who see the issue differently,” Buescher ruled. A third Trump appointee, Louisiana’s Terry Doughty, recently flipped on the issue. Despite initially ruling against the Trump administration, Doughty said the Board of Immigration Appeals’ October decision was persuasive. Most Read Donald Trump holds an executive order and speaks with Linda McMahon. Trump’s next plan for the US education system: Lots and lots of rules Trump warns acting Venezuelan leader will ‘pay a big price’ if she doesn’t cooperate Trump’s Attack on Venezuela Could Change the World. Here’s How. 92-year-old judge handling Maduro case ‘doesn’t give a s--t what anyone thinks about him’ Trump on return trip to Washington predicts demise of Cuba, warns Colombia, threatens Greenland But even among Trump appointees, those rulings are an exception. Others, like Florida’s Kyle Dudek, Texas’ Jason Pulliam and Kentucky’s Rebecca Grady Jennings, have rejected ICE’s new policy. “The same wisdom that requires immigrants and noncitizens to follow the law equally requires the government to follow the law. That wasn’t done here,” wrote Damon Leichty, a Trump appointee based in Indiana, in a Dec. 30 ruling. Judges reject another detention policy Though the expansion of mandatory detention has flooded the courts with emergency litigation, it’s not the only aspect of the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy that has clogged court dockets. Another prominent culprit is the Trump administration’s decision to round up immigrants who have previously been ordered deported — sometimes years earlier — but whose home countries have refused to issue valid travel documents to effectuate their return. Though immigration officials are permitted to detain people in order to carry out their deportations, they can’t do so indefinitely. There’s no official legal limit, but the Supreme Court has blessed a six-month detention as “presumptively reasonable.” Yet judges across the country have found the Trump administration frequently violating these restrictions, holding people in detention without any country willing to accept them and no prospect for imminent deportation. This has led to a second surge of litigation and, in many cases, orders by judges requiring immigrants’ immediate release. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik last month ordered the release of a Vietnamese woman who was arrested at an ICE check-in in August even though the federal government has been unable, for 26 years, to obtain travel documents to return her to her home country. Lasnik noted that the woman’s son died by suicide in November and without release, she would be unable to attend his funeral. Other judges have ordered the release of people who have resided in the U.S. while fleeing persecution in Iran, Russia and other countries that rarely accept U.S. deportees. Subramanian’s blistering ruling came in the case of Aissatou Diallo, a 52-year-old woman from Guinea who was ordered deported in 2012 but could not be sent to her home country because an immigration judge concluded she was likely to face persecution there. “Fast forward to November 25, 2025. Without any notice, Diallo was taken out of the security line at LaGuardia Airport, arrested, and shipped off to Louisiana to be detained there until the government can find a country to send her to,” Subramanian wrote. “At the hearing on her … petition on December 5, 2025, Diallo appeared in a courtroom sullen and scared, in prison garb, and shackled. None of this had to happen. All of it is illegal.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Despair for would-be US citizens as American dream blocked by Trump

The occasion should have been marked by the joy of reaching the destination of US citizenship following the long odyssey of immigration. Instead, the ceremony at Boston’s Faneuil Hall – renowned as a “cradle of liberty” for its role as a protest hub in the run-up to the American revolution – felt like a nightmarish end of the road for some aspirant new Americans who had turned up full of hope. Before proceedings at this month’s event got under way, staff from the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) asked arrivals expecting to swear the oath of allegiance that would finally confirm them as citizens to state their country of origin. Gray-and-red graphic illustration of a person being detained, overlaid on a bar chart. By the numbers: the latest ICE and CBP data on arrests, detentions and deportations in the US Read more Those from nations included on a travel ban list announced by Donald Trump last summer were then excluded from taking part, despite having completed the years-long vetting process. Among the disappointed was a Haitian nursing assistant in her 50s who had lived in the US for nearly 25 years – denied what immigration specialists say is her legal right by a sudden policy change introduced by the Trump administration on “security” grounds. The woman declined an interview request. But Gail Breslow, executive director of Boston-based Project Citizenship – which had helped guide her citizenship application – said she was left devastated and distraught. “Our client hadn’t received USCIS’s written notification on time and turned up expecting to become a citizen,” Breslow said. “She told us she was not alone in this and the same thing happened to others. “The image of officers going down a line and asking people where they were born, and based on the answer that they gave, pulling them out of line and sending them home is gut-wrenching. “We had another client there the same day from Honduras who was allowed to take part and sent us pictures of his naturalization. People are holding little flags and it’s a image of pride and joy as people are surrounded by family members – the contrast between that and people being plucked out of line based on what country they’re from is the most un-American image I can conjure.” The scene has been replicated in venues elsewhere in response to a USCIS memorandum sent out on 5 December instructing that immigration proceedings be paused for the nationals of 19 countries on Trump’s ban list. The memo followed the shooting on 26 November of two national guard troops in Washington DC, allegedly by an Afghan national, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who had been granted asylum earlier this year by the Trump administration. “In light of identified concerns and the threat to the American people, USCIS has determined that a comprehensive re-review, potential interview, and re-interview of all aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021 is necessary,” read the memo, which cites the shooting of the national guards as a justification for the review. The memo prompted a flood of emails to applicants awaiting naturalization informing them that the ceremonies had been canceled. “This is to advise you that, due to unforeseen circumstances, we have had to cancel the previously scheduled Oath Ceremony on Wednesday, December 03,2025 at 12:30PM for the above applicant,” one typical email seen by the Guardian read. “We regret any inconvenience this may cause.” Advocacy groups report oath ceremonies being called off in Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Houston, St Louis, Omaha and elsewhere. “We have seen these cases now in over 16 cities, affecting nationalities that include Iranians, Haitian, Sudanese, Yemen, Venezuelan, Afghan, Sierra Leonean, Guinean, Libyan, just to name quickly some of the countries [proscribed],” said Greg Chen, senior director for government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. closeup of a hand holding a passport in a pocket ‘It’s sad we have to do this’: the US citizens carrying passports out of fear Read more Prohibitions also apply to green-card applicants and those applying for naturalization but who have not yet reached the stage of taking the oath of allegiance. “We’re talking about [the cancellation of] three types of things – green-card interviews, naturalization interviews and then … an oath ceremony where it’s kind of finalized,” said Chen. Most of those affected refuse to speak to the media, fearing that publicity could make them targets for reprisals or raids carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents enforcing Trump’s immigration agenda, which has been marked by mass deportations of undocumented people. However, a Libyan doctor – emailing the Guardian anonymously at the request of his lawyer – said his green-card application had been halted despite having worked in the US for 10 years after entering on an O-1/EB-1 (extraordinary ability) visa. “I never imagined that in the United States I would be targeted because of my nationality and religious background, particularly by the authorities,” wrote the doctor, whose medical work is focused on developing AI diagnostic and treatment tools for lung cancer. “I invested years of relentless effort in this journey … I pursued the American dream in good faith, believing in this country as a land of opportunity. skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to This Week in Trumpland Free newsletter A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration Enter your email address Marketing preferences Get updates about our journalism and ways to support and enjoy our work. Sign up Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion “Now, as I reach the final stages of my permanent residency process, an expensive and lengthy process, my future appears jeopardized solely because of my country of origin. I can’t describe to you the uncertainty, fear, disappointment and confusion I feel right now.” Such feelings are commonplace among groups suddenly fearing their path to citizenship is shutting. “We’ve had clients in tears asking us, what did they do wrong,” said Breslow of Project Citizenship, which has seen 21 clients receive oath ceremony cancellations and more than 200 being paused at an earlier stage. “What did they do to deserve this? People are very distraught.” Emotions are running particularly high among Afghans, nearly 200,000 of whom arrived in the US under the Biden administration’s Operation Allies Welcome program that followed the 2021 military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Many now feel singled out and betrayed after the national guard shootings, according to advocates. “We feel guilt and shame that that guy was part of our community,” said Fatima Saidi, director of We Are All America, a refugee and immigrants group. “But he was also a part of American militarism. He joined the US army when he was 15 and was trained.” In fact, Lakanwal was part of an Afghan unit that operated under CIA direction. “We also feel guilty for other communities because policies that are targeting Afghans are also affecting them,” she added. “But the other thing is just hopelessness and disappointment, especially among the Afghans who came here as allies. Most of them feel they have done so much for America, the veterans and the state department.” Nicole Melaku, executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans, said the collective demonizing of legal residents and citizenship applicants had ominous portents. “The strategy of the administration began with an assault on undocumented immigrants, and now he [Trump] is going after those with legal status and trying to move them into his deportation pipeline through administrative processes,” she said. “Everything here feels like part of a larger, ominous agenda to have exclusion, going back to times where we had the Chinese Exclusion Act or other operations in the 1940s like sending people back to Mexico.” Her warning was given added weight by guidance issued last week to USCIS field offices that signalled a forthcoming assault on the citizenship of Americans already naturalized. side by side photos of man holding two passports and woman smiling with man as she holds up folder of papers ‘I want that escape route’: Americans seek dual citizenships under Trump Read more The new guidance instructed offices to “supply Office of Immigration Litigation with 100-200 denaturalization cases per month” during the 2026 fiscal year, the New York Times reported, targets that would amount to a massive escalation of denaturalization cases. By comparison, only 120 were filed from 2017 to 2025. Federal law mandates that citizenship can only be withdrawn if holders committed fraud while applying. But a justice department memo sent to its civil division last June ordered denaturalization cases to be prioritized and appeared to lay down broader parameters. “It says they’re going to prioritize denaturalization cases against people who furthered criminal gangs, people who committed felonies that were not disclosed, and people who engaged in fraud against private individuals,” an immigration policy expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, said. “Those categories don’t require criminal convictions. “Only certain cases can be denaturalized under the law, although this administration is trying to stretch the parameters of what that means. “People who have had their naturalization interviews and ceremonies canceled … and then also stripping citizenship from already naturalized Americans – they’re like two halves of the same coin to make more of our community members subject to detention and deportation.”