Federal judges in San Francisco have sharply rebuked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for its handling of immigrant detentions, ordering the temporary release of dozens of detainees over concerns about violations of constitutional due process rights. The rulings come amid a nationwide surge in ICE arrests and a growing wave of legal challenges questioning the agency’s detention practices.
The cases stem from a series of habeas corpus petitions filed by immigration attorneys who argue that their clients have been unlawfully detained without being granted a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge. These filings, commonly known as petitions for writ of habeas corpus, assert that ICE has been holding immigrants indefinitely—many of whom have no criminal records—without the opportunity to contest their detention in court.
A review of more than two dozen recent habeas cases in the Bay Area federal district court, covering 37 immigrants detained by ICE across California and neighboring states, shows a consistent judicial trend. In every decided case, judges have issued temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions mandating the release of detainees until their habeas petitions are resolved. In a few pending matters, judges have yet to issue rulings on temporary release motions.
Immigration defense attorneys say the government’s actions amount to an erosion of civil rights. “The violation of constitutional rights is so egregious,” said Jordan Weiner, who leads the immigration defense program at La Raza Centro Legal, a San Francisco nonprofit. “These are people who haven’t missed hearings, who haven’t committed crimes, and yet they’re being arrested and detained.”
Weiner explained that her team’s work has shifted dramatically in recent months. Previously focused on asylum representation, her organization now routinely files emergency federal cases to free detained clients. She said ICE agents have begun arresting immigrants—many of them asylum seekers—immediately following their immigration court appearances or during routine check-ins, creating a climate of fear among communities who have complied with all legal requirements.
One case involved a Peruvian asylum seeker who arrived in the U.S. nearly three years ago and had consistently attended his immigration court hearings. Despite full compliance, he was arrested by ICE agents this past July while leaving court. Within 24 hours, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order mandating his release, later converting it into a preliminary injunction allowing him to remain free while his case proceeds.
In her order, Judge Trina Thompson wrote that courts “routinely grant temporary restraining orders barring the government from detaining noncitizens who have been on longstanding release without first holding a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.” She added that the public interest lies in “preventing constitutional violations” and that ICE “only risks minimal harm” in delaying detention while due process is ensured.
Attorneys argue that recent Department of Homeland Security policy changes have intensified the problem. A July memo classified anyone who entered the country without authorization—regardless of how long ago—as an “applicant for admission,” effectively stripping immigration judges of authority to grant bond. This interpretation, later upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals, allows ICE to detain individuals indefinitely without a bond hearing.
Federal judges in San Francisco, however, have increasingly rejected that approach. During a recent hearing, Judge James Donato challenged government attorneys on why ICE continues detaining immigrants without pre-detention hearings. “This argument has failed in every court that it’s ever been argued,” Donato said, urging the government to “just give them a hearing.”
For many immigrants, these court victories have meant freedom from detention facilities often criticized for poor conditions. Asylum seekers like Jorge Valera, also from Peru, describe the experience as dehumanizing. “Never in my country was I treated like this,” Valera said after his release. “They shackled my feet. I am not a criminal.”
Weiner said her small nonprofit has filed nearly a dozen habeas petitions in recent months, leading to the release of more than two dozen immigrants from ICE custody. She emphasized that the fight is far from over, as the agency continues to detain individuals without hearings. “We’re just trying to show how much time and taxpayer money is being spent defending these unconstitutional actions,” she said. “It’s not sustainable.”
As court orders continue piling up, legal experts believe the government may face growing pressure to revisit its detention policies. For now, federal judges across California appear unified in their message: immigrants, regardless of status, are entitled to constitutional protections under the law.
