Federal Judges Push Back Against Expanded Mandatory Detention: What This Means for Immigrant Families

In recent months, federal courts across the United States have issued a series of powerful rulings rejecting the Trump administration’s expansion of mandatory immigration detention. More than 300 judges have now ruled against Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s July 2025 shift to detain virtually anyone in the country unlawfully without the possibility of bond while awaiting deportation proceedings. These judges have ordered release or bond hearings in more than 1,600 cases as documented in the POLITICO report contained in the uploaded file.

This unprecedented judicial pushback reflects a broad, bipartisan concern: while the government may pursue removal, the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act require due process, proportionality and individualized assessment. Courts are signaling that sweeping detention policies lacking statutory grounding cannot stand.

Courts Rebuke Detention of Long-Resident Immigrants Without Bond

The revised ICE policy treats even long-term residents as “applicants for admission,” a legal classification previously used only for individuals who recently entered the country. Judges across the country have rejected this interpretation, noting that for three decades, immigration authorities limited mandatory detention to individuals who posed a danger or a flight risk.

Federal judges from every presidential administration since Ronald Reagan have criticized the administration’s approach. Some judges have described the deluge of cases as “Sisyphus rolling a rock uphill,” reflecting the constant stream of emergency habeas filings filed in the hours or days following sudden ICE arrests.

Notably:

• Judge Arun Subramanian condemned the “flood” of cases involving families “ripped apart” and individuals detained “with no end in sight,” including those with decades of lawful presence and consistent compliance with immigration check-ins.

• Judges appointed by presidents Biden, Obama, Clinton and even Trump himself have found that the government’s new mandatory detention theory exceeds the bounds of the law.

• Of the more than 300 judges who ruled, only 14 have sided with the administration, 11 of whom were Trump appointees, but even 33 Trump-appointed judges rejected the policy.

Why These Rulings Matter: The Legal Foundation Is Cracking

At the heart of the judicial resistance is a statutory conflict that has existed for decades. Mandatory detention provisions apply to specific categories of noncitizens, but ICE’s reinterpretation reclassifies long-term residents as if they were recent border entrants. Courts emphasize:

• Detention must relate to flight risk or danger

• Long-term residents historically have had the right to bond hearings

• Mandatory detention cannot be stretched beyond congressional intent

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a decision in October supporting the administration’s interpretation, further complicating the landscape and fueling a surge in federal court filings. Yet federal judges are clear: administrative reinterpretations cannot override due process or longstanding judicial precedent.

Courts Also Reject Prolonged Detention Where Deportation Is Not Possible

A second wave of rulings has targeted the administration’s practice of detaining individuals whose deportation cannot be executed because their home countries will not issue travel documents.

Examples include:

• A Vietnamese woman detained despite the government’s 26-year inability to repatriate her, released only after a court intervened.

• Individuals from Iran, Russia and Guinea detained indefinitely despite credible fear findings or long-pending removal orders with no realistic prospect of deportation.

Judges cite the Supreme Court’s rule that detention beyond six months becomes presumptively unreasonable where removal is not foreseeable. These federal decisions reiterate that indefinite detention is unconstitutional.

What Comes Next: Appeals, Circuit Splits and the Likelihood of Supreme Court Review

The appellate courts are now flooded with cases, but resolution may take months. Some circuits have indicated skepticism of the administration’s position, including the Seventh Circuit, though its recent comments arose in the context of a longstanding class action. Uniformity is unlikely until the Supreme Court weighs in.

Until then, litigation will continue on a case-by-case basis, leaving families in urgent need of legal representation capable of filing rapid, effective federal habeas petitions.

How Spar & Bernstein Can Help Families Navigate This Evolving Landscape

In an enforcement environment where noncitizens may be detained abruptly, even after years of lawful presence and compliance, experienced legal advocacy is more important than ever.

At Spar & Bernstein, our immigration attorneys:

• Prepare and file emergency federal habeas petitions for individuals unlawfully detained

• Seek immediate release orders or bond hearings based on recent nationwide judicial precedents

• Challenge misapplications of the “mandatory detention” label

• Litigate prolonged detention cases where deportation is not reasonably foreseeable

• Advise families and employers on preventive strategies, including documentation and check-in planning

• Provide compassionate, solutions-oriented representation grounded in decades of immigration litigation experience

The courts’ resistance to mass detention shows that the law remains a powerful tool when leveraged correctly. Families facing detention crises do not need to navigate this alone. Spar & Bernstein stands ready to advocate swiftly, strategically and effectively.