Japan Today
Immigration Enforcement-Strained Courts
FILE - Migrants wearing face masks and shackles on their hands and feet sit on a military aircraft at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, Jan. 30, 2025, awaiting their deportation to Guatemala. (AP Photo/Christian Chavez, File)
world

Trump's immigration crackdown straining federal courts; judges are raising the alarm

18 Comments
By SUDHIN THANAWALA

Federal judges around the country are scrambling to address a deluge of lawsuits from immigrants locked up under the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.

Under past administrations, people with no criminal record could generally request a bond hearing before an immigration judge while their cases wound through immigration court unless they were stopped at the border. President Donald Trump 's White House reversed that policy in favor of mandatory detention.

Immigrants by the thousands have been turning to federal courts by using another legal tool: habeas corpus petitions. While the administration scored a major legal victory Friday, here's a look at how that's affecting federal courts and what some judges have done in response:

In one federal court district in Georgia, the enormous volume of habeas petitions has created “an administrative judicial emergency,” a judge wrote in a court order on Jan. 29. U.S. District Judge Clay Land in Columbus said the Trump administration was refusing to provide bond hearings to immigrants at Georgia's Stewart Detention Center despite his ”clear and definitive rulings" against mandatory detention. Instead, the court had to order the hearing in each individual case, wrote Land, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush.

In Minnesota, where the administration's immigration enforcement surge continues, U.S. District Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz said in a Jan. 26 order Trump officials had made “no provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result.” The court had received more than 400 habeas petitions in January alone, according to a filing by the government in a separate case.

Schiltz, who was also nominated by Bush, said in a separate order two days later that the government since January had failed to comply with scores of court decisions ordering it to release or provide other relief to people arrested during Operation Metro Surge.

And in the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian said in an opinion in December that the district had been “flooded” with petitions for relief from immigrants who posed no flight risk or danger but were nonetheless imprisoned indefinitely. Subramanian, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and presides in New York City, granted a 52-year-old Guinean woman's habeas petition and ordered her release.

“No one disputes that the government may, consistent with the law’s requirements, pursue the removal of people who are in this country unlawfully,” he wrote. “But the way we treat others matters.”

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement on Friday that the administration was “more than prepared to handle the legal caseload necessary to deliver President Trump’s deportation agenda for the American people.”

DHS and the Justice Department, which also emailed a statement, slammed the judiciary.

“If rogue judges followed the law in adjudicating cases and respected the Government’s obligation to properly prepare cases, there wouldn’t be an ‘overwhelming’ habeas caseload or concern over DHS following orders,” the Justice Department statement said.

On Friday, a federal appeals court backed the administration's policy of detaining immigrants without bond. The 2-1 ruling by a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked a major legal victory for the government and countered a slew of recent lower court decisions that argued the practice was illegal.

In November, a federal judge in California ruled that the Trump administration's mandatory detention policy was illegal. U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes in Riverside, who was also nominated by Biden, later expanded the scope of the decision to apply to detained immigrants nationwide.

But plaintiffs' attorneys said the administration continued to deny bond hearings.

"This was a clear cut example of blatant defiance, blatant disregard of a court’s order,” Matt Adams, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Associated Press in January.

According to Sykes, the government argued her decision was “advisory” and told immigration judges, who work for the Justice Department and are not part of the judicial branch, to ignore it. The judge said she found the latter instruction “troubling.”

In its statement, DHS said “activist judges have attempted to thwart President Trump from fulfilling the American people’s mandate for mass deportations.”

Land, the federal judge in Georgia, directed other judges in his district to immediately order the government to provide bond hearings to immigrants who meet criteria established by two previous habeas cases.

Maryland District Court Chief Judge George L. Russell III has ordered the administration not to immediately remove any immigrants who file habeas petitions with his court, under certain conditions. Russell, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said in an amended order in December that the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings.”

In Tacoma, Washington, U.S. District Judge Tiffany Cartwright ordered the administration last month to give immigrants detained at a processing center in Tacoma notice of her ruling that the mandatory detention policy was illegal. Cartwright, who was also nominated by Biden, said the high volume of habeas filings had put a “tremendous strain” on immigration attorneys and the court.

© Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2026 GPlusMedia Inc.


18 Comments
Login to comment

Because there are alot of illegal immigrants. A no brainer.....

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Hopefully the judges will just start releasing people from the mass roundups by this administration. I mean they already do to anyone with a lawyer.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Federal judges around the country are scrambling to address a deluge of lawsuits from immigrants locked up under the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.

What a waste of time and money.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Because there are alot of illegal immigrants. A no brainer.....

True.

Hopefully the judges will just start releasing people from the mass roundups by this administration. I mean they already do to anyone with a lawyer.

Not really, it's getting harder for them, these activist judges are losing more in Federal court and the good thing is, they're not stopping at all on the deportations whatsoever, so you bet it's going to stress these judges and that's a good thing.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

But plaintiffs' attorneys said the administration continued to deny bond hearings.

Completely lawless administration. People should be allowed out on bail.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

There were a lot of undocumented migrants prior to Trump 1.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Literally every high profile case the individual was released... back into the US.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Literally every high profile case the individual was released... back into the US.

Not really.More than 675,000 deportations (formal removals), with totals sometimes recorded around 605,000–622,000 in late 2025 press releases. These often combine interior removals and some border-related actions.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Hands down, all the better than case for voluntary self deportations.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

So stop trying to block every single deportation and the court won’t have this problem.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

So stop trying to block every single deportation and the court won’t have this problem.

Very good point however, we live in a world of zero common sense.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Some here claim every single illegal should get a full trial.

so that would be 15-20 million x 5-10 days in court.

how many decades or centuries is that?

Once illegals are gone from the census and don’t count as voters for Blue states, Dems will go right back to reporting them like Clinton and Obama did.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Trump has suggested several remedies to combat this. Firstly, there were generous cash payments to self deport. Secondly, proposed military courts to expand capacity. Both of these initiatives were mocked by the usual suspects whinging the loudest now.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Because as long as illegals are counted in the census and voter ID isn’t mandatory, illegals have value and power over Democrats who choose them over the American people.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Blacklabel

Because as long as illegals are counted in the census and voter ID isn’t mandatory, illegals have value and power over Democrats who choose them over the American people.

Nope. Because it is illegal to register to vote if you are an undocumented immigrant, so they don’t.

Depending on the state, some sort of id is required to register.

This is a made up issue.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Blacklabel

Some here claim every single illegal should get a full trial.

Not necessarily a full trial, but at least a court hearing. That’s guaranteed by the constitution.

so that would be 15-20 million x 5-10 days in court.

how many decades or centuries is that? 

Once illegals are gone from the census

That won’t happen. They are part of the community.

and don’t count as voters for Blue states,

They never did. Undocumented immigrants aren’t allowed to register to vote.

Dems will go right back to reporting them like Clinton and Obama did.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

as long as illegals are counted in the census and voter ID isn’t mandatory, illegals have value and power over Democrats

Even if it were true that noncitizens are voting (which they're not), I thought Hispanic voters were moving in droves into the arms of MAGA.

You should be happy to have them in the country.

After all, Hispanics love Trump!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

U.S. federal judges are declaring 'judicial emergencies' because their system is buckling under chaos. Meanwhile, Japan’s courts are functioning perfectly, and our streets remain the safest in the world. Next time a outsider tries to lecture us about how Japan manages its borders, maybe remind them that having a system that actually works isn't 'oppression'—it’s common sense. Enjoy the deluge!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites