More Than 220 Judges Reject Trump Administration’s Mass Immigrant Detention Policy as Legal Backlash Surges Nationwide

Federal courts across 35 states — including more than 20 Trump-appointed judges — say the administration’s sweeping detention order likely violates due-process rights as emergency lawsuits skyrocket past 700 cases.

A rapidly expanding coalition of federal judges across the country — now totaling more than 220 — has formally rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to implement a sweeping new mass-detention policy aimed at immigrants in deportation proceedings. The wave of rulings represents one of the broadest and most bipartisan judicial rebukes of a federal immigration initiative in decades.

The rulings, which span over 700 emergency cases, increasingly highlight the judiciary’s frustration with what courts describe as an unlawful, unprecedented effort by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain nearly all noncitizens facing removal from the United States. And in a striking development, at least 23 of the judges opposing the policy were appointed by former President Donald Trump himself.

A Fast-Growing Judicial Revolt

The administration’s policy — enacted July 8 — triggered mass arrests at workplaces, courthouses, and routine immigration check-ins. Many of those detained have long-standing ties to the United States, including U.S. citizen family members, steady employment, and active asylum cases. But ICE’s directive eliminated their ability to seek release through immigration courts, forcing detainees to turn to federal judges for emergency relief.

Federal courts have overwhelmingly ruled against the administration. Judges in Massachusetts, Colorado, California, Florida, Idaho, Texas, Michigan, Louisiana, and more than two dozen additional states have called the policy unlawful, unsupported by statutory text, and incompatible with constitutional due-process protections.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder in California said the “onslaught of litigation” has made it nearly impossible for courts to keep up. Michigan-based U.S. District Judge Hala Jarbou, a Trump appointee, described receiving over 100 petitions before an additional 97 detainees filed a joint lawsuit seeking release.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill of Idaho pointed to the growing consensus in his Nov. 19 ruling:

“Dozens of district courts across the nation — with more each day — have rejected DHS’s expansion of mandatory detention. This court joins the overwhelming majority.”

Only Eight Judges Have Sided With the Administration

While the judicial pushback has been broad, decisions in favor of the administration have been exceedingly rare. Only eight federal judges nationwide have upheld the policy, six of whom were appointed by Trump.

Federal court clerks and immigration attorneys describe an environment in which rulings arrive daily — sometimes hourly — rejecting the government’s interpretation.

Nationwide Consequences Loom

Until now, ICE’s detention initiative has been primarily challenged on a case-by-case basis. But momentum is shifting. Judges in California, Colorado, and Massachusetts have now approved class-action lawsuits, raising the possibility of national injunctions or court-mandated bond hearings for thousands of detained immigrants.

Appellate courts in the 5th and 8th Circuits have been asked to expedite review, while the administration has urged other federal appeals courts to slow their consideration. The legal tension has frustrated immigrant-rights groups seeking consistent national guidance.

DHS officials remain publicly confident, arguing that Biden-era immigration policies necessitated a broader enforcement posture.

“President Trump and Secretary Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep America safe,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

A Sharp Break From 30 Years of Legal Precedent

At the heart of the dispute is the administration’s reinterpretation of long-standing immigration statutes. For decades, courts and presidents of both parties have applied mandatory detention primarily to recent arrivals apprehended near U.S. borders.

The Trump administration reversed that principle, arguing that millions of immigrants living for years — even decades — inside the United States can still be treated as “seeking admission."

One federal judge compared the logic to saying someone who sneaked into a movie theater remained “seeking admission” long after taking a seat.

Immigration Courts Sidelined

Immigration courts — normally the primary venue for bond hearings — have been stripped of authority under a new directive from the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting the administration’s position. That has left federal courts as the only remaining path for immigrants to challenge detention.

A Nationwide Wave of Legal Resistance

A review of thousands of federal dockets by TELL IT LIKE IT IS News shows:

• 225 federal judges have ruled against ICE’s policy.
• 166 appointed by Democratic presidents (80 Biden, 66 Obama, 20 Clinton).
• 59 appointed by Republican presidents, including 23 by Trump.
• Cases have been filed in at least 35 states, from California and New York to Missouri, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, and Nebraska.

The breadth of the rulings — and the bipartisan makeup of the judges — underscores the uncommonly unified judicial front forming against the administration’s expansive interpretation of detention powers.

With class-action cases advancing and appellate courts now weighing in, the legal battle is poised to shape the contours of federal detention authority for years to come — and may soon determine whether the administration can continue its sweeping interior-enforcement strategy.

======

-- By James W. Thomas

© Copyright 2025 JWT Communications. All rights reserved. This article cannot be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten, or distributed in any form without written permission.