Two federal judges blocked Trump’s immigration crackdown on the same day, and one said ICE had a longstanding history of breaking the law
“Donald Trump” by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0.
Gotta find some legal loopholes now.
|
Two federal judges ruled against President Trump’s immigration enforcement policies on the same day, blocking certain practices in Oregon and Minnesota. Both decisions found that federal immigration authorities were violating statutory and constitutional protections, and ordered immediate changes in procedures within those states.
Trump’s administration has been ramping up its “whole-of-government” approach to immigration enforcement, coordinating personnel from agencies including ICE, U.S. According to Newsweek, Border Patrol, the FBI, and the DEA have been asked to increase arrests and removals. Critics have raised concerns about civil liberties abuses, misconduct, and racial profiling.
In Oregon, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai ordered ICE agents to immediately stop arresting residents without a warrant. His order also requires agents to have a probable cause determination that the person poses an escape risk before a warrant can be obtained. Judge Kasubhai stated there is a high likelihood that the immigrants who filed the lawsuit will succeed in proving that ICE has been abusing its arrest and deportation powers.
ICE’s longstanding disregard for the law has finally caught up with the agency
Judge Kasubhai described ICE’s enforcement operations as unlawful “dragnets,” finding that agents were detaining individuals without individualized probable cause or judicial warrants. He determined these actions likely violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The judge noted that ICE has a “longstanding history of noncompliance with these same laws,” adding, “The court has no confidence that they will cease the unlawful practices, even, if not especially, when they insist with a straight face they are complying with the law.”
This is consistent with a broader pattern, a federal judge who found ICE defied over 210 court orders points to the same issue. The injunction requires ICE in Oregon to secure a judicial warrant or prove probable cause of both removability and escape risk for any civil immigration arrests.
In Minnesota, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim issued a similar order, blocking federal agents from arresting residents without a warrant or without first determining probable cause of an escape risk, converting an earlier temporary restraining order into a broader preliminary injunction.
Judge Tunheim sharply criticized this, writing, “This Court will not allow federal authorities to use a new and erroneous statutory interpretation to terrorize refugees who immigrated to this country under the promise that they would be welcomed and allowed to live in peace, far from the persecution they fled.” He concluded the government lacked clear congressional authority to detain refugees on that basis alone.
Judge Tunheim’s 66-page ruling noted that none of the plaintiffs had been charged with removal, found dangerous, or shown to be a flight risk. The court found that DHS’s interpretation, suggesting officials could indefinitely detain refugees after 366 days, directly contradicted decades of established practice and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
ICE’s detention practices have drawn wider scrutiny, including the ICE detention of a Columbia University student that sparked national debate. The order requires the release of refugees already detained in Minnesota and prohibits new detentions under the challenged policy.
Sarah Kahn, Senior Staff Attorney for CHRCL, commented, “Refugees came to the U.S. fleeing violence, and the United States promised them peace and safety. By targeting, persecuting, detaining, and seeking to deport refugees, the United States is breaking that promise. We are grateful that the Court continues to hold the U.S. accountable for keeping its promise to refugees.”
Published: Mar 1, 2026 02:45 pm