Over 300 Federal Judges Reject Expanded 'Mandatory Detention' Policy

Federal judges nationwide have increasingly pushed back against the Trump administration’s effort to broaden so-called “mandatory detention,” ordering release or bond hearings in hundreds of cases and sharply criticizing the treatment of immigrants held without clear legal basis.

Judicial Pushback and Scope

According to a POLITICO analysis of federal dockets, more than 300 federal judges — including appointees of presidents from Ronald Reagan through Donald Trump — have issued rulings that curtailed the administration’s roughly six-month-old drive to detain most people facing deportation without the opportunity for bond. Those judges have ordered releases or bond hearings in over 1,600 cases.

Why Judges Are Objecting

Judges across jurisdictions have described recurring patterns: immigrants, many of whom are long-term U.S. residents and not charged with crimes, are being detained abruptly — sometimes after routine ICE check-ins or court appearances — and shipped to distant facilities where conditions are reported as harsh and access to counsel is limited. One judge compared the administration’s campaign to Sisyphus rolling a boulder uphill; others have issued short, nearly identical opinions to handle the flood of emergency petitions.

“This district has been flooded with petitions for relief with similar stories — families ripped apart, and people who pose no danger or risk of fleeing imprisoned with no end in sight…,” wrote U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian in a Dec. 23 opinion. “No one disputes that the government may…pursue the removal of people who are in this country unlawfully. But the way we treat others matters.”

Numbers and Bench Breakdown

POLITICO’s review found a lopsided pattern: 308 judges have ruled against the mass-detention approach — ordering releases or bond hearings in more than 1,600 cases — while 14 judges have sided with the administration. Of those ruling against the policy, appointees of Presidents Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton make up a large share (103, 97 and 27, respectively), and a significant number of judges appointed by Republican presidents including George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan have also rejected the policy. Even among Trump appointees, 33 judges have ruled against the administration’s position.

Key Legal Issues

At the heart of the disputes is statutory interpretation: federal law authorizes mandatory detention for certain “applicants for admission” who entered the United States unlawfully, a phrase historically read to apply mainly to recent crossers at the border. Immigration authorities traditionally allowed bond hearings and limited detention for long-term residents unless they posed a danger or flight risk. The administration’s revised policy treats many interior residents as “applicants for admission,” subjecting them to mandatory detention without bond — a departure from decades of practice that courts have repeatedly questioned.

Administrative and Appellate Dynamics

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sided with the administration in October, endorsing a broader interpretation of mandatory detention and prompting a wave of emergency federal litigation. Some district judges have issued nationwide or broad remedies, while others have refused to defer to a single district-court decision, leading to conflicting orders across the country. The administration has appealed many losses, but appeals courts and potentially the Supreme Court are likely to be the ultimate arbiters — and appellate resolution could take months.

Notable Rulings and Examples

Judges ruling against the administration include U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian (New York) and Damon Leichty (Indiana). Several Trump appointees have supported the administration in isolated opinions — Judges Jodi Dishman, Brian Buescher and Terry Doughty among them — but those rulings are exceptions amid the broader pattern of judicial skepticism.

Courts have also intervened when detainees could not be removed because foreign governments would not accept them. The Supreme Court has treated a six-month detention as presumptively reasonable in some contexts, but many judges find the administration is detaining people for longer periods without a realistic prospect of removal and have ordered releases on those grounds. Examples cited in recent opinions include long-term residents who were arrested after ICE check-ins and people who would face persecution if returned to their home countries.

Administration Response

Department of Homeland Security officials say their interpretation reflects the fullest detention authority available under federal law and that previous administrations simply chose not to exercise it. Officials characterize the policy as a response to prior “catch-and-release” practices and say the government will defend its position on appeal.

Outlook

The surge of litigation and the geographic spread of conflicting decisions make an appellate resolution likely. Until federal appeals courts or the Supreme Court settles the legal questions at issue, district courts will continue to handle a large volume of emergency petitions, producing a patchwork of rulings and ongoing litigation.

Bottom line: Hundreds of federal judges have constrained the administration’s expanded detention policy, citing statutory limits, due-process concerns and the humanitarian consequences of prolonged or indiscriminate detention. The controversy now turns to the courts of appeals and potentially the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.