Federal Judge Rebukes Trump Administration Over Immigration Detention Policy

A federal judge in California has sharply criticized the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, accusing it of violating court orders and unlawfully denying detained immigrants access to bond hearings. The ruling, issued late Wednesday, adds to mounting judicial scrutiny of the administration’s mandatory detention policy.

In a decision that could affect immigration proceedings nationwide, U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes ordered the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to notify eligible detainees that they may seek release on bond and to provide them with access to a phone within one hour to contact an attorney. The order follows earlier rulings in which Sykes found the administration’s policy unlawful under federal statute.

The case highlights a broader legal clash between the executive branch and federal courts over immigration enforcement, a central issue during President Donald Trump’s tenure.

Judge says administration defied prior orders

Sykes, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, ruled in November and December that the administration’s interpretation of mandatory detention violated an act of Congress. Her decisions extended nationwide, applying beyond the immediate plaintiffs in the case.

In her latest order, the judge said the government had continued to deny bond hearings despite her earlier rulings. She also vacated a September immigration court decision that administration officials had cited to justify maintaining the detention policy.

“The threats posed by the executive branch cannot be viewed in isolation,” Sykes wrote, arguing that due process protections must apply even in the context of immigration enforcement.

She further stated that the policy’s impact went beyond noncitizens, referencing the deaths of two U.S. citizens in Minnesota — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — in language critical of the administration’s broader enforcement approach.

Administration defends detention practices

The White House referred requests for comment to DHS. In a statement, the department said the Supreme Court had “repeatedly overruled” lower courts on issues related to mandatory detention and maintained that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) follows the law while complying with court rulings pending appeal.

“ICE has the law and the facts on its side,” the department said, adding that it adheres to court decisions until they are overturned by higher courts.

The administration has argued that its detention policies are aimed at ensuring compliance with immigration proceedings and prioritizing public safety.

Surge in habeas petitions

Before the policy shift, immigrants without criminal records were generally permitted to request bond hearings while their cases proceeded through immigration court, unless they had been stopped at the border. The Trump administration reversed that practice, expanding the scope of mandatory detention.

As a result, thousands of detainees have filed habeas corpus petitions in federal court seeking release. According to federal court data analyzed by the Associated Press, more than 20,000 such cases have been filed since Trump’s inauguration.

Federal judges across the country have granted many of these petitions. In some instances, courts later found that the administration failed to comply fully with orders to release detainees or provide bond hearings.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Minnesota held a government attorney in contempt for failing to return identification documents to an immigrant ordered released. Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey directed the administration to detail how it ensures compliance with court orders after officials missed deadlines for bond hearings in a number of cases.

“Judicial orders should never be violated,” Farbiarz wrote.

Broader constitutional questions

Sykes’ decision underscores a growing tension between federal courts and the executive branch over the limits of immigration authority. While Congress has granted the government broad powers to detain certain categories of noncitizens, courts have repeatedly examined whether those powers must be balanced against constitutional due process protections.

In her ruling, Sykes said denying bond access “harms families, communities, and the fabric of this very nation.” She also questioned the administration’s assertion that its enforcement efforts primarily target serious criminals, writing that many detainees do not fit that description.

Legal analysts note that the dispute could ultimately return to the Supreme Court if appeals proceed. For now, Sykes’ order requires DHS to adjust its procedures immediately to comply with her interpretation of federal law.

Matt Adams, an attorney representing plaintiffs in the case, said he hopes the ruling will effectively end the blanket application of mandatory detention.

“Certainly in the normal course of things, the immigration judges would return to granting bond hearings,” Adams said.

The case represents one of several ongoing legal battles over immigration enforcement policy, an issue that continues to shape national debate and test the boundaries of executive power.