Federal judges across the country are pushing back in force against the Trump administration’s sweeping new immigration detention policy, signaling what can only be described as a judicial revolt.
The crackdown began abruptly on July 8, when ICE rolled out a policy to detain nearly all immigrants facing deportation. Arrests followed at workplaces, courthouses, and check-ins with immigration officers — often targeting people who have lived in the U.S. for years, sometimes decades, pursuing asylum or other legal status. The courts were immediately flooded with emergency lawsuits.
So far, at least 225 federal judges in more than 700 cases have ruled that the policy — which strips immigrants of the chance to request bond from an immigration judge — likely violates the law and due process. These judges represent at least 35 states and include 23 appointed by Trump. In contrast, just eight judges nationwide have sided with the administration, according to Politico.
Courts overwhelmed
Judges are openly frustrated by the deluge of cases. “The Court is unable to remain current on all new case authority supporting the Court’s conclusion, given the continued onslaught of litigation being generated by [the administration’s] widespread illegal detention practices,” wrote U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder, a Clinton appointee in California.
Michigan-based Trump appointee Judge Hala Jarbou said she handled more than 100 cases personally before another 97 detainees filed a joint suit asking for release. Judges have warned the administration’s legal theory could justify detaining millions of people who have lived in the U.S. for decades.
“Dozens of district courts across the nation — with more each day — have rejected DHS’s expansion of … mandatory detention,” wrote Idaho-based Judge Lynn Winmill, a Clinton appointee. “This court joins the overwhelming majority.”
Nationwide relief may be coming
Class-action lawsuits are beginning to challenge the policy on a broader scale. Judges in Massachusetts, Colorado, and California have recently certified nationwide classes, potentially forcing ICE to provide bond hearings for everyone detained under the policy.
Appeals courts are just starting to weigh in. The administration has pushed for expedited rulings in the 5th and 8th Circuits while asking other circuits to slow their proceedings, frustrating immigration advocates.
DHS officials remain confident. “President Trump and Secretary Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep America safe,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
The legal battle
The dispute centers on two long-standing provisions of immigration law. One requires detention of “arriving” immigrants who are “applicants for admission” and “seeking admission,” historically applied to people caught at the border.
The other permits — but does not require — detention of immigrants during deportation proceedings, allowing most long-term residents to live freely while their cases proceed.
The Trump administration broke with decades of precedent, claiming that millions of long-term residents are still “seeking admission,” making them subject to mandatory detention. One judge compared it to saying someone who sneaked into a movie theater hours earlier is still seeking admission.
Previously, immigration judges could grant bond to detainees after reviewing flight risk or danger. That safeguard is now largely gone: the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the administration’s policy, ruling that judges no longer have authority to release these detainees. Federal courts have become the last stop.
Judges united coast to coast
Politico’s review shows that judges are rejecting the policy in red and blue states alike. At least 225 federal judges have ordered releases or bond hearings for more than 500 detainees. Among them:
166 appointed by Democratic presidents (80 Biden, 66 Obama, 20 Clinton). 59 appointed by Republican presidents (28 George W. Bush, 23 Trump, 4 George H.W. Bush, 4 Reagan)
Judges in Missouri, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Texas, and many other states have all pushed back, creating a nationwide judicial rebuke of one of the most aggressive immigration policies in recent memory.
