Original Date Announced

In over three hundred separate cases, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has repeatedly refused to comply with orders granting writs of habeas corpus to detained noncitizens. The forms of noncompliance vary widely, with the highest volume of cases being those in which the government has failed to timely file documents with the court, including emergency status reports on classes of individuals subject to orders that ICE not remove them from the country. Another significant area of noncompliance is failure to comply with orders finding that noncitizens detained in the interior are subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), entitling them to a bond hearing. Several judges have threatened to initiate civil and criminal contempt proceedings against federal officials who fail to comply with habeas orders, as well as state officials providing support.

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Trump 2.0 [ID #2262]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.25 Moreta Duran v. Bondi - Order Granting Immediate Release

Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted a noncitizen's request for a writ of habeas corpus ordering his immediate release on his own recognizance, modifying a magistrate judge's recommendation that he be granted a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Judge Davis credited the petitioner's allegation that "the grant of a hearing is no remedy at all because the Executive Office of Immigration Review is now stating 'that its immigration judges cannot conduct a 8 U.S.C. § 1226 bond hearing, despite a federal court order, because the condition of warrant of arrest is not proven." Judge Davis wrote that "[t]he Court finds these allegations" and noted that "[t]here has been an undeniable move by the government in the past month to defy court orders or at least stretch the legal process to the breaking point in an attempt to deny noncitizens their due process rights." Moreta Duran v. Bondi, 0:25-cv-04816, (D. Minnesota).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.27 Order Granting TRO - Olga Sosa Inzuna v. Warden of Adelanto Detention Facility

Judge Sykes granted a temporary restraining order in an individual habeas case, finding that the noncitizen petitioner is entitled to an individualized bond hearing under Maldonado Bautista. The order also collaterally estopped the federal government from relitigating the merits of Maldonado Bautista. Judge Sykes notes that habeas petitions have become “routine” due to the government’s “deliberate choice to continue defying the final judgment entered in Bautista," and accuses the government of “manufactur[ing] arguments for the sake of opposition.” Olga Sosa Inzuna v. Warden of Adelanto Det. Facility, No. 5:26-cv-00078 (C.D. Cal.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.28 Order - Juan TR v. Noem

In a previous order, District Judge Patrick Schiltz required the government to provide a bond hearing to a detained noncitizen or release him. After the government failed to provide a bond hearing and also failed to release the noncitizen, Judge Schlitz ordered the Acting Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, to appear in person to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. Alternatively, ICE could comply with the order and release the respondent. ICE released the respondent and Judge Schlitz entered this order canceling the in-person hearing with Lyons. In the order, Judge Schlitz appended a list of at least 96 court orders in 74 cases that the federal defendants had violated since January 1, 2026—including in the case at hand. The court states that the list “should give pause to anyone . . . who cares about the rule of law.” Juan TR v. Noem, No. 0:26-cv-00107 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.02.18 Reported: Officials Violated More Than 50 Court Orders in New Jersey, Justice Dept. Tells Judge - New York Times

The New York Times reports that the Trump administration has violated more than 50 federal court orders in immigration detention cases in the District of New Jersey since December 2025, according to a court-ordered review by a senior Justice Department official. The filing, which occurred in Kumar v. Soto, 26-cv-00777 (D.N.J.), identified 52 violations across 547 cases, including the failure to conduct a mandated bond hearing, the transfer of detainees out of state despite court orders barring their movement, and the deportation of one petitioner in violation of a court order.

District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz, who demanded the accounting, said in a subsequent order that the government's compliance "falls below the relevant standards" and ordered officials to detail how they will ensure full adherence to court orders. Similar concerns have arisen in other districts, including Minnesota, as judges nationwide criticize what they describe as a pattern of noncompliance amid a surge of immigration detention challenges during Trump's second term.

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.02.27 Order Granting Writ of Habeas Corpus - Dominguez Izaguirre v. Mason

Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia granted a petition for writ of habeas corpus for a noncitizen detained without a bond hearing. The court rejected the government's argument that the noncitizen was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, finding that that the petitioner is not “seeking admission” into the country, so therefore the discretionary detention of 8 U.S.C. § 1226 applies to him. The court found that mandatory detention of this noncitizen violated the Fifth Amendment. The court also held that "[i]mmediate release is the only appropriate remedy," rather than ordering the government to hold a bond hearing.

The court also noted that despite multiple judgements to this effect in West Virginia, the government has continued to arrest noncitizens in the interior of the US and hold them without the due process of a bond hearing in violation of the Fifth Amendment. It cautioned that if the government continues detaining noncitizens unconstitutionally, the court will start issuing civil fines and contempt findings — including against state officials who help them carry out the jailing itself. Dominguez Izaguirre v. Mason, 2:26-cv-00121, (S.D. W. Va).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.03.02 Opinion - Kumar v. Soto

District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz issued an opinion addressing repeated violations of judicial no-transfer injunctions by federal immigration officials. The court found that despite a January 26, 2026 order prohibiting the removal of petitioner Baljinder Kumar from the district, ICE transferred him to a detention center in Texas. While the government characterized the transfer as "inadvertent" due to administrative oversight, the court identified 17 similar violations of no-transfer orders occurring in the district since December 2025.

To ensure future compliance and avoid the "last resort" of criminal contempt proceedings, the court implemented a new mandatory procedural requirement for all immigration-habeas cases handled by the presiding judge. Effective immediately, both the U.S. Attorney’s Office and ICE must promptly file declarations under penalty of perjury for every new no-transfer injunction issued. These declarations, signed by senior leadership, must confirm that the specific injunction was received, conveyed to appropriate personnel, and accompanied by written legal advice regarding the obligation to comply. Kumar v. Soto, No. 26-cv-00777 (D.N.J.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.03.06 Reported: Judges keep ordering immigration hearings — but say the results are often a sham - Politico

Politico reports that federal district-court judges across the country have held that the immigration-court bond hearings they are ordering turn out to be fundamentally unfair and constitutionally inadequate. At some bond hearings, Immigration Judges (IJs) have found detainees to be a "flight risk" or "danger to the community" even when the government presented no evidence against the detainee, or relied on an interpreter not fluent in the detainee's language. Some judges have required new bond hearings or ordered detainees' release after bond denials.