White House and Homeland Security officials pushed back, criticizing the judges, including some Republican appointees, as “activists.”
5-year-old boy detained by ICE in Minnesota driveway released
Liam Ramos, a 5-year-old boy held by federal immigration agents in Minnesota, has been released from a Texas detention center.
WASHINGTON – A striking trend is playing out in federal courts across the country. Judges appointed by both parties have issued unusually scathing criticisms of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.
In January, a senior district judge in Texas accused the administration of “haphazardly and incompetently executing the government’s pursuit of daily deportation quotas.”
In his order, Minnesota’s chief judge said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement “likely violated more court orders as of January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.” Another federal judge called President Donald Trump an “authoritarian” and accused the administration of flouting the First Amendment.
As the Trump administration expands its efforts to carry out the largest mass deportation in U.S. history, it has drawn fierce criticism from members of the judiciary, including judges appointed by Republican presidents.
more: Local communities rebel against ICE’s move to turn warehouses into detention facilities
Since returning to office, President Trump and senior administration officials have taken swift action to step up immigration enforcement, from bringing more federal officers to major U.S. cities to ending bail hearings for detained immigrants.
In response, a number of district court judges have criticized the administration in opinions and courts, accusing ICE of willfully violating hundreds of court orders and denouncing the tactics used by federal agents during raids across the country.
White House and Homeland Security officials pushed back, calling the judges, who have long supported Republicans, “activists.” Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that detainees are receiving proper due process and that the Trump administration is “well prepared to handle the large volume of legal cases” resulting from immigration enforcement.
White House press secretary Abigail Jackson criticized the judges’ pushback in an emailed comment to USA TODAY, saying, “It is appalling that federal judges are sworn to faithfully and impartially enforce the law, yet clearly biased lower courts continue to try to push illegal policy agendas out of court. President Trump will continue to uphold his constitutional obligation to enforce the law and carry out the agenda for which he was elected.”
‘Very likely to be unprecedented’ ruling prompts appeal
Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on federal courts, said he reviewed recent statements from district judges and said there appeared to be no historical precedent.
“It is unusual, and perhaps unprecedented, for so many judges to condemn executive action in such strong terms in such a short period of time,” he said.
Amanda Frost, a University of Virginia law professor and immigration expert, agreed that the district judge’s harsh language was unusual. But she noted that the Trump administration has gone further than any administration in modern history to test the limits of its authority.
Meanwhile, some prominent district court judges have ruled in favor of the regime. On February 9, Los Angeles Judge Christina A. Snyder, appointed by President Bill Clinton, blocked a California law banning federal employees from wearing masks, saying it was unconstitutional because it did not apply to all law enforcement officers.
But when the Trump administration has faced resistance from local judges, it has been able to win, at least temporarily, by appealing the rulings.
So far in February, two separate appeals courts have sided with the federal government, allowing authorities to deny bail hearings to immigrants in custody, including those with no criminal records, and allowing the government to move forward with eliminating deportation protections for more than 60,000 immigrants from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua.
The successful deportation protection appeal followed a scathing order from San Francisco District Judge Trina Thompson, who accused Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of making racist comments that “perpetuated the discriminatory belief that certain immigrants replace the white population.”
“Do not exceed the law”
U.S. District Judge Jerry Blackwell is among several Minnesota judges who have expressed frustration with what they say is the Trump administration’s consistent violation of court orders stemming from immigration cases.
During a Feb. 3 hearing, Blackwell, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, threatened to hold lawyers representing the federal government in contempt of court in an unusual move.
Julie Le, an ICE attorney sent to assist the Justice Department with processing cases in Minnesota, where ICE launched its largest-ever immigration operation, said she and her colleagues at the U.S. Attorney’s Office were “overwhelmed,” according to the filing.
“When I started this job, to be honest, I had no guidance on what I needed to do,” she told the judge, adding that trying to get a response from ICE about the necessary fixes was like “pulling teeth.”
“This system sucks. This job sucks,” she said, later adding. “Sometimes I wish, for the sake of your honor, you could just disrespect me. Then I could get a good night’s sleep 24 hours a day.”
“The court order is not a recommendation and is not conditional,” Blackwell said.
“Detention without legal authority is not just a technical defect, it is a constitutional injury that falls unfairly on the heads of people who have done nothing wrong to justify it. It is the people who are affected. The vast majority of the hundreds identified in this court are found to be legally present in the country at this time. They live in the community. Some are separated from their families,” Blackwell said.
“The Department of Justice, DHS, and ICE are not above the law. They do exercise extraordinary powers, and that power must exist within constitutional limits,” Blackwell continued. “When people disobey court orders, it’s not just the court’s authority that’s at stake; it’s the rights of the individuals in custody and the integrity of the constitutional system itself.”
Lee has been removed from his post at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, multiple news outlets reported. A DHS spokeswoman called Lee’s comments “unprofessional and inappropriate,” but did not say whether she had returned to her previous job at ICE.
“ICE is not a law per se.”
In January, Minnesota Chief Judge Patrick Shilts, appointed by President George W. Bush, threatened to hold acting ICE Director Todd Lyons in contempt for violating court orders.
“The court’s patience has reached its limits,” he wrote in an order filed Jan. 26, noting that the administration had ignored “dozens” of orders forcing immigration authorities to hold bail hearings for people in Minneapolis custody.
The immigrant at the center of the case was released from custody after a sharply worded order requiring Lyons to appear in court and explain ICE’s actions. As a result, Schiltz canceled the hearing, but said he still had concerns about violations in other cases.
“This order is accompanied by an appendix identifying 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases,” Schultz wrote. “This list should give anyone who cares about the rule of law pause, regardless of their political beliefs.”
“ICE is not a law per se,” he added. “While ICE has every right to challenge this court’s orders, ICE, like any other litigant, must comply with the order unless it is overturned or set aside.”
Days earlier, Schultz sparred with the Trump administration after the Justice Department asked him to decide whether to issue arrest warrants for five people, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon, in connection with protests at a church in St. Paul.
Schultz said a survey of all of the 8th Circuit’s chief judges found that none had seen such a request, calling it “frivolous” in a letter to the circuit’s Chief Justice Stephen Colloton.
Hellman said Schiltz joined the bench in 2006 with an “extraordinary reputation.” Mr. Schultz began his professional career clerking for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin G. Scalia, and a few years later taught Justice Amy Coney Barrett at Notre Dame.
“It’s highly unusual for someone with that background and temperament to write something in such strong terms,” Hellman said, noting that Schultz’s Senate confirmation was supported by both Republican and Democratic senators.
Schultz is not the only Republican-appointed federal judge to voice opposition to the administration’s immigration crackdown.
U.S. District Judge Clay Rand, a Bush appointee, wrote in a court order in January that the Trump administration is refusing to provide bail hearings to detained immigrants despite a “final ruling” to do so. He described the backlog of immigration cases as an “administrative-judicial emergency.”
On January 14, Judge William Young, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, called President Trump an “authoritarian” and said he had “conspired to violate” the First Amendment rights of pro-Palestinian activists the administration is targeting for deportation.
“This government doesn’t seem to understand what the First Amendment is,” Young said.
White House press secretary Anne Kelly accused Young of engaging in “left-wing activities” on Fox News Digital. The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement to USA TODAY that it “looks forward to the appellate court vindicating us in this case.”
Judge reprimands by quoting the Bible and Thomas Jefferson
Some of the most surprising orders condemning the Trump administration were written by U.S. District Judge Fred Bailly, a Clinton appointee.
A Texas district court judge wrote a scathing opinion, citing the Constitution and scripture, ordering the release of 5-year-old Liam Ramos and his father after they were detained outside their Minneapolis home in January.
“This case stems from the government’s haphazard and incompetent execution of pursuing daily deportation quotas when it clearly requires traumatizing children,” Billy wrote.
“The government’s ignorance of the American historical document called the Declaration of Independence is also evident,” he added.
Mr. Biery compared the administration’s actions to those of George III, which the Founding Fathers cited in the Declaration of Independence.
“Thomas Jefferson, 33, enumerated his grievances against the fledgling nation against an authoritarian wannabe king…’We the People’ are hearing echoes of that history,” Billy wrote.
Mr. Biery’s order also included an image of an undercover agent standing behind Mr. Ramos, wearing a blue bunny hat and carrying a Spider-Man backpack, an image that has become emblematic of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement efforts.
Beneath the image, Biery quoted the Bible passages Matthew 19:14 and John 11:35, recalling Jesus Christ’s response to the disciples who tried to prevent children from coming to him. The second quote refers to Jesus Christ’s reaction when he saw the tomb of Lazarus.
“And Jesus wept,” the passage says.
After the order, Liam and his father returned to their home in Columbia Heights, Minnesota. Since then, the Trump administration has sought to hasten their deportation, but a judge on Feb. 6 allowed the family to continue their refugee claims, giving them more time to claim asylum.
Contributed by: Reuters
Christopher Cann is a national breaking news reporter for USA TODAY. Email us at ccann@usatoday.com.
