Listen to the article
Federal Judges Face Criticism for Releasing Immigrants Detained in “Operation Country Roads”
Several federal judges in West Virginia are drawing intense criticism for ordering the release of some of the 650 undocumented immigrants arrested during ICE’s “Operation Country Roads” sweep. The judicial decisions have ignited a heated debate about constitutional limits on immigration enforcement and the safety of federal agents.
Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, has become a focal point of controversy after granting the release of Salvadoran national Anderson Jesus Urquilla-Ramos. In his ruling, Goodwin sharply criticized ICE agents for wearing masks during operations and conducting warrant-free arrests, describing their actions as “an assault on the constitutional order” and “what the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.”
The judge’s order, which permitted habeas corpus relief, characterized the Department of Homeland Security’s behavior as incompatible with constitutional protections. In a separate case involving Yuri Aroca and Arley Valenzuela, who were detained following a traffic stop along the West Virginia Turnpike, Goodwin wrote, “I am not blind to the practical demands of immigration enforcement, including cooperation between state and federal authorities, but the Constitution presupposed restraint as the default of lawful authority.”
These judicial interventions have sparked fierce backlash from Republican lawmakers representing West Virginia. Representative Carol Miller, whose district covers the southern half of the state, condemned Goodwin’s decision: “If Judge Goodwin experienced even 1% of the threats and harassment that ICE officers receive, he might have had the courage to make a ruling based on the law and not his personal political agenda.”
Miller defended ICE agents’ use of masks, stating they are necessary to protect officers and their families from potential doxxing and targeting by what she described as “mobs that continue to terrorize our cities.”
The coordinated immigration operation netted hundreds of undocumented immigrants across West Virginia, from Charles Town in the north to Beckley in the south, with many cases falling within the Charleston-based Southern District of West Virginia.
Moore Capito, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, defended the state’s partnership with federal law enforcement, telling Fox News Digital: “We in the Southern District of West Virginia have the most committed and cooperative law enforcement partners that you will find. Our officers take precautions to protect themselves and their families from retaliation, the same way members of the judiciary rely on institutional protections every day.”
Capito indicated his office would continue supporting law enforcement while responding to various petitions, noting that the cases involving released individuals are “ripe for appeal.”
The White House also weighed in on the controversy. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson highlighted the dangers faced by immigration officers, stating, “ICE officers are facing a 1,300% increase in assaults against them because of dangerous, untrue smears from elected Democrats. ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxxed.”
Another federal judge, Obama appointee Irene Berger, issued a similar order releasing a non-citizen truck driver detained at the Ghent Toll Plaza. Berger also recently ruled against a key policy initiative from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Representative Riley Moore, who represents northern West Virginia including Jefferson County, echoed Miller’s concerns about agent safety: “ICE agents are being doxxed and their families are being attacked by radical leftists just for doing their jobs. We’ve seen time and again what violent leftists are capable of, and our ICE agents should never be subjected to this terrible treatment.”
The Justice Department has signaled its position on the matter, with a spokesperson stating, “Laws banning federal agents from wearing protective masks are unconstitutional,” referencing a recent California court case that addressed similar issues. The spokesperson added, “This Department of Justice is focused on law and order, public safety, and will not tolerate any violence directed toward law enforcement officials.”
Some of the released individuals have named President Donald Trump as a defendant in their cases, suggesting the federal government would be the party to appeal these decisions. Others have listed various officials including West Virginia corrections official Christopher Mason, ICE Director Todd Lyons and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
As the legal battles continue, the case highlights the ongoing tensions between immigration enforcement priorities and judicial interpretations of constitutional protections.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


10 Comments
The judges’ rulings on the release of these migrants due to the ICE agents’ conduct are certainly sparking controversy. It’s an important issue that highlights the ongoing tensions around immigration policy and enforcement.
This is a sensitive and politically-charged topic. I hope both sides can engage in constructive dialogue to find a balanced approach that upholds the law while respecting civil liberties.
This controversy over the judges’ decisions to release migrants due to the ICE masking policy highlights the complexities and sensitivities around immigration enforcement. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds and what the broader implications might be.
These are challenging issues without easy answers. I hope the various stakeholders can engage in thoughtful, nuanced dialogue to find a balanced approach that respects the law and civil liberties.
The decision to release the migrants over the ICE masking policy raises significant constitutional questions. It will be interesting to see how this case develops and how the legal precedents unfold.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. I’m curious to hear more expert analysis on the legal nuances and potential implications.
The judges’ rulings on the release of these migrants due to the ICE agents’ conduct seem to be a significant development in the ongoing debate around immigration enforcement. It’s an issue worth following closely.
I can understand the concerns raised by the judges about the constitutional issues surrounding the ICE agents’ actions. It’s an important topic that deserves careful consideration.
Interesting to see the debate around the judges’ decisions regarding the ICE detentions. The use of masks and warrant-less arrests does seem to raise constitutional concerns that need to be carefully considered.
I can understand both sides of this issue. Immigration enforcement is a complex topic with valid arguments on multiple fronts.