Immigration detention is facing renewed scrutiny in the United States as lawyers accuse Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of repeatedly arresting immigrants who have secured release through federal court petitions.
The Guardian identified at least 20 cases nationwide over the past year in which immigrants were detained again after winning release through habeas corpus petitions, raising concerns about compliance with judicial orders.
The legal procedure allows detainees to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a federal court while their wider immigration cases continue. Its name comes from a Latin phrase meaning “you shall have a body.”
Bridget Pranzatelli of the National Immigration Project said the organisation had observed a sharp rise in cases involving immigrants released through habeas petitions only to be detained again shortly afterwards.
“We’ve seen a very, very sharp increase in people who are released on habeas petitions, only to be very rapidly re-detained, often in violation of the federal court’s order,” she said.
Research by ProPublica found that more than 91,000 habeas petitions had been filed. Since January 25, the number submitted has exceeded the combined total during the previous three presidential administrations, including Donald Trump’s first term.
The cases have raised questions about whether judicial intervention can provide lasting protection for immigrants facing prolonged detention.
Elderly detainee re-arrested after release
One case involved Akram Mahmoud Omar, a 77-year-old Palestinian man who suffered a heart attack while held at Camp 57, an ICE detention facility within Louisiana’s Angola state prison.
Omar secured release through a habeas petition but was reportedly arrested again by immigration authorities within 10 days.
His experience reflects concerns among lawyers that winning a court challenge does not necessarily end an immigrant’s detention.
In Minnesota, seven immigrants were reportedly detained again before they could leave the Whipple federal building, a detention facility outside Minneapolis, after securing favourable court decisions.
Attorney Daniel Suitor questioned whether such actions complied with judicial orders.
“I don’t think being taken out of a building and directly into the arms of four or more officers complies with the court’s order,” Suitor said.
Appeals court highlights repeated detention
In October, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s attempt to dismiss a habeas petition on the grounds that authorities could detain the petitioner again.
The appeals court referred to the government’s “demonstrated pattern of re-detaining” non-citizens who had obtained habeas relief.
In Louisiana, a federal judge held a senior immigration official in contempt after Ibrahim Mohammed was reportedly detained again three times. The judge demanded his release.
Other federal judges in Pennsylvania and Minnesota have also held immigration authorities in contempt or threatened similar penalties.
These cases have intensified concerns about immigration detention and the authority of federal courts to determine whether individuals can legally remain in custody.
Third-country deportations add to the controversy
Immigration lawyers believe some repeat arrests are connected to the Trump administration’s expanding use of third-country deportations.
Under this approach, the United States seeks to deport certain immigrants to countries other than their countries of origin, including individuals who cannot legally be returned to their home countries because of protection orders.
Susanna Booth of the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights linked the growing problem to recent agreements involving African countries.
“It’s really tethered to the explosion of third country agreements with primarily African nations in the past four months,” she said.
Lawyers explain that withholding of removal generally prevents deportation to a specific country where a person faces a qualifying danger. However, it does not necessarily prevent removal to another country.
“They just can’t be removed to the countries that are listed on the ‘withholding of removal’ order, but they can be removed to third countries,” Ahmed said. “And that has always been the law. It’s just that it wasn’t practiced.”
More than 25,000 non-citizens have reportedly been deported to countries other than their own. Some have been held in prisons or secure hotels and pressured to return to their countries of origin.
Human rights experts have questioned whether certain practices comply with international protections, including the Convention Against Torture.
Booth said immigrants could find themselves repeatedly seeking legal intervention despite previously winning their cases.
“Say you win [your petition], but then [the government] is like ‘Well, that’s fine because then we can just send them to Liberia,’ it just kind of feels like you’re playing Whac-a-Mole with every country in the world,” she said.
Lawyers seek stronger safeguards
Attorneys have increasingly sought additional safeguards in court orders to prevent immigration authorities from immediately detaining or deporting their clients again.
Tess Hellgren of the National Immigration Project explained that some judges now require the government to provide advance notice before attempting another removal.
“The court will say, for example, ‘The government needs to give us at least three days’ notice if they’re trying to remove this person [again],’” she said.
“It might not sound like much, but that’s actually quite a bit in cases,” Hellgren added.
Booth said two of her clients were detained again and threatened with deportation to two African countries with which they had no connections. Both were eventually released after filing second habeas petitions.
Her organisation now prepares additional petitions in advance in some cases, particularly when clients face possible transfers to states where lawyers believe they may encounter less favourable judicial treatment.
The strategy reflects fears that a successful petition in one jurisdiction may not end the legal battle if authorities subsequently move a detainee or pursue a different deportation destination.
Supreme Court ruling complicates deportation challenges
The dispute intensified after an appeals court ruled in September that the Trump administration had to notify immigrants about third-country deportations and give them an opportunity to challenge their removal.
However, the US Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative majority granted an emergency stay, allowing third-country deportations to continue rapidly without the procedures sought by immigrant advocates.
The decision has complicated efforts by lawyers to secure effective protection for clients facing removal to unfamiliar countries.
Some immigrants who previously qualified only for withholding of removal may now be eligible for asylum following the overturning of a Biden-era rule that had prevented many people who crossed the border unlawfully from obtaining asylum.
Joseph Giardina, a Louisiana-based immigration lawyer, described how two Egyptian clients benefited from this legal development.
Both men had protection against removal to their home country but were detained again weeks after obtaining release through habeas petitions. They were subsequently threatened with deportation before being granted asylum.
Giardina argued that the administration was moving quickly to remove people who might otherwise qualify for stronger protection.
“The Trump administration knows ‘[the Biden-era rule] was the only reason they were not granted asylum’”, Giardina said, “and they are doing their damnedest to deport them as quickly as they possibly can to another country”.
Thousands of legal challenges remain unresolved
The growing number of cases has placed additional pressure on federal courts, with thousands of habeas petitions reportedly taking months to resolve, particularly in Louisiana and Texas.
These delays mean some detainees remain in custody while waiting for judges to determine whether their detention is lawful.
Jonah Eaton, a litigation attorney with UnLocal, said successful court challenges might not provide lasting relief if authorities continue to detain people through subsequent enforcement actions.
“We can sort of win the battle, but we’re going to lose the war. Because in the long run, they’re still going to be able to do what they want to do, which is arrest people and hold them for long periods of time,” Eaton said.
The controversy over immigration detention is therefore no longer limited to whether an individual can obtain release. It also concerns whether that release will be respected and whether repeated arrests undermine the practical value of court decisions.
Immigration authorities retain powers to enforce federal law, but lawyers argue that those powers must be exercised in accordance with binding judicial orders and applicable legal protections.
Read also: Trump plans to govern without Congress if Democrats win midterm elections
The growing number of cases is likely to keep the relationship between immigration enforcement and federal courts under scrutiny as judges consider further challenges to detention practices and third-country deportations.
About The Author
