Across the United States, a quiet tug-of-war is unfolding between the judiciary and the executive branch — and the numbers are staggering. Since October, federal judges have ruled more than 4,400 times that detentions carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were unlawful. Yet the detentions continue.
The rulings represent one of the most sustained judicial pushbacks against an immigration policy shift in recent memory. Under President Donald Trump’s administration, ICE detention levels have surged to roughly 68,000 people — about a 75% jump from when he returned to office.
At the center of the legal storm is a departure from a decades-old understanding of immigration law: that many immigrants living in the U.S. while contesting their cases could seek release on bond. Courts across the country have repeatedly said that the administration’s new approach — favoring prolonged or mandatory detention — stretches beyond what the law permits.
In West Virginia, U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston sharply criticized the government for attempting to sidestep “clearly written” law while ordering the release of a Venezuelan detainee. In Minnesota, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz found that an 18-year-old asylum seeker had been detained without evidence of a valid warrant. Another judge in the same state ruled that the teen’s father was entitled to a bond hearing, rejecting the administration’s statutory interpretation.
Still, the administration has pressed forward.
A recent decision from a conservative appeals court in New Orleans handed the government a partial victory, holding that prior administrations’ restraint in using detention powers did not mean broader authority was absent. Other appellate courts are poised to weigh in, setting up a potential circuit split that could elevate the issue further.
Meanwhile, the legal machinery is grinding under pressure.
More than 20,000 detainees have filed habeas corpus petitions — the centuries-old legal mechanism, rooted in English common law and embedded in the U.S. Constitution, that allows individuals to challenge unlawful confinement. The volume is extraordinary. Federal dockets show over 700 Justice Department attorneys have been deployed to handle immigration-related habeas cases, with some appearing in more than 1,000 filings each.
Judges have also documented instances where release orders were not promptly followed. In Minnesota alone, dozens of court directives were reportedly not carried out on time. In New York, a federal judge rebuked ICE for transferring a detainee across state lines while representing to the court that he remained elsewhere.
The human stories beneath the statistics are stark.
Within days in January, habeas petitions were filed for a five-year-old boy detained outside his Minnesota home; a Ukrainian man with valid temporary humanitarian status arrested on his way to work; a Salvadoran father of an autistic U.S.-citizen child; a refugee hospital worker; and a Venezuelan man picked up after dropping his daughter at school. None had criminal records.
For many, access to relief depends on speed and money. Advocacy groups in New York now station volunteers outside immigration courtrooms, racing to connect detainees with lawyers before they are transferred to distant facilities. Legal fees can climb into the thousands — far beyond the reach of families already under strain.
One U.S. citizen spouse in Texas described nearly a year of detention for her Venezuelan husband, who has no criminal history but faces unproven allegations of gang ties. With their home recently destroyed by fire, she said she pleaded for his release so he could help rebuild their lives. Only recently did an attorney agree to take up his habeas case without charge.
The administration maintains it is enforcing federal immigration law and complying with court orders. Critics argue the repeated judicial findings tell a different story.
What remains clear is this: the courts have spoken thousands of times. Whether that chorus ultimately reshapes detention policy — or merely adds to an expanding docket — is a question still moving through the system.
