Trump’s immigration crackdown is straining federal courts. Judges are raising the alarm

Federal Courts Overwhelmed by Immigration Lawsuits as Trump Administration Enforces Mandatory Detention

Federal judges across the United States are grappling with an unprecedented surge of lawsuits from immigrants detained under the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation campaign, creating what some judges describe as an administrative crisis in the court system.

The flood of legal challenges stems from a significant policy shift. While previous administrations generally allowed immigrants with no criminal records to request bond hearings while their cases proceeded through immigration court, the Trump White House reversed this approach in favor of mandatory detention, even for those with no criminal history.

In response, thousands of immigrants have turned to federal courts through habeas corpus petitions – a legal tool that allows detained individuals to challenge the lawfulness of their imprisonment. The resulting caseload has pushed some courts to their limits, with judges raising serious concerns about the administration’s compliance with court orders.

“This has created an administrative judicial emergency,” wrote U.S. District Judge Clay Land in a January court order. Land, a George W. Bush appointee presiding in Columbus, Georgia, criticized the administration for refusing to provide bond hearings to immigrants at the Stewart Detention Center despite his “clear and definitive rulings” against mandatory detention.

The situation is equally dire in Minnesota, where U.S. District Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, another Bush nominee, noted the administration had made “no provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result” from its immigration enforcement surge. The Minnesota federal court received more than 400 habeas petitions in January alone.

In New York, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian described his court as “flooded” with petitions from immigrants who posed no flight risk or danger but remained indefinitely imprisoned. “No one disputes that the government may, consistent with the law’s requirements, pursue the removal of people who are in this country unlawfully,” wrote Subramanian, a Biden appointee. “But the way we treat others matters.”

The Department of Homeland Security defended its approach, stating it was “more than prepared to handle the legal caseload necessary to deliver President Trump’s deportation agenda for the American people.” Both DHS and the Justice Department criticized the judiciary in statements, with the Justice Department claiming “rogue judges” weren’t following the law properly.

The administration secured a significant legal victory on Friday when a federal appeals court backed its policy of detaining immigrants without bond. In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals countered numerous lower court rulings that had declared the practice illegal.

This ruling contradicts a November decision by U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes in California, who had ruled that the administration’s mandatory detention policy violated the law. Sykes later expanded her ruling to apply nationwide, but immigration attorneys claim the administration continued to deny bond hearings regardless.

“This was a clear cut example of blatant defiance, blatant disregard of a court’s order,” said Matt Adams, lead attorney for the plaintiffs challenging the policy.

Faced with mounting caseloads, federal judges have implemented various strategies to manage the situation. In Georgia, Judge Land directed other judges in his district to immediately order bond hearings for immigrants meeting specific criteria. Maryland District Court Chief Judge George L. Russell III prohibited the immediate removal of certain immigrants filing habeas petitions, citing “hurried and frustrating hearings” resulting from after-hours filings.

In Washington state, U.S. District Judge Tiffany Cartwright ordered the administration to inform immigrants detained at a Tacoma processing center about her ruling against mandatory detention. She acknowledged that the high volume of habeas filings had placed “tremendous strain” on both immigration attorneys and the court system.

The situation highlights the tension between the administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement priorities and the federal judiciary’s role in ensuring constitutional protections apply to all individuals in government custody, regardless of immigration status. As the legal battles continue, thousands of detained immigrants remain caught in a system struggling to process their cases in a timely manner.