More than 100 federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy for immigrants. The rulings, issued more than 200 times nationwide, say the policy violates U.S. law and the rights of individuals facing deportation. Judges appointed by presidents from both major parties, including Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump himself, have sided against the administration.
The wave of legal opposition began after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) introduced a new rule in July. The policy ordered the detention of all immigrants facing deportation — even those who have lived in the United States for decades and have no criminal record. It also removed the right of detainees to request bond or a hearing before an immigration judge.
Federal courts across the country have rejected this interpretation of immigration law. Many judges ruled that it denies immigrants basic constitutional protections. U.S. District Judge Kyle Dudek, a Trump appointee in Florida, stated that the courts “join the consensus” that the policy is unlawful.
Other judges appointed by Trump, such as Terry Doughty in Louisiana, Nancy Brasel in Minnesota, J.P. Hanlon in Indiana, and Jason Pulliam in Texas, have issued similar decisions. In one case, Judge Pulliam found that a detainee held without any assessment of risk or threat was denied due process.
Since the policy took effect, hundreds of cases have been filed. Most are emergency petitions from individuals detained after routine check-ins or courthouse visits. A few class-action suits have also been filed, but they are still pending. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Patti Saris, appointed by Bill Clinton, approved a statewide class for immigrants in Massachusetts challenging the policy.
Despite widespread rejection in court, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) continue to defend the rule. DHS said its position had been upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which operates under the executive branch. A department spokesperson said the administration is “enforcing the law as written to keep America safe.”
The DOJ added that immigration enforcement remains a national security priority. Yet judges across the country have found that the administration’s reading of immigration law ignores decades of precedent.
In recent weeks, federal courts have repeatedly described the policy as harsh and unlawful. U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware, appointed by Barack Obama, ruled that the government’s new approach “has been found incorrect and unlawful by the overwhelming majority of courts.”
The Trump administration argues that anyone residing in the United States without authorization qualifies as an “applicant for admission.” Under that definition, ICE claims that all such individuals are subject to mandatory detention. Previous administrations limited that term to people arriving at or seeking entry through ports of entry.
Judges have consistently rejected this claim, saying that immigrants living in the U.S. are not “applicants for admission” and have the right to request release on bond or contest their detention. Courts say denying that right violates both constitutional and statutory protections.
A POLITICO analysis found that most rulings against the Trump administration came from judges appointed by Democratic presidents Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton. However, many Republican-appointed judges have also sided with that view. The breakdown includes 50 Biden appointees, 31 from Obama, six from Clinton, 12 from Trump, 12 from George W. Bush, one from George H.W. Bush, and two from Reagan.
Only two judges — one appointed by Obama and another by Trump — have agreed with the administration’s position. This near-unanimous judicial opposition underscores the strength of the legal consensus against the mandatory detention policy.
The legal backlash resembles an earlier episode when the Trump administration sought to strip foreign students of their legal status. That policy also faced strong court opposition and was eventually withdrawn.
Despite the mounting losses, the Justice Department has begun appealing many of the unfavorable rulings, hoping higher courts will uphold the administration’s interpretation.
The judges rejecting Trump’s mandatory detention policy signal a significant blow to the administration’s immigration agenda. Legal experts say the outcome could reshape how the United States interprets detention and due process rights for immigrants in the years to come.
