Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem participates in a roundtable with the American Sheriff Alliance at the Peppermill in Reno, Nev., March 2, 2026. (DHS photo by Tia Dufour)
"Aghast" federal judges are increasingly angry at President Donald Trump's Departments of Justice and Homeland Security for immigration judges making decisions they believe do not comport with the evidence, much less the law.
Legal reporter Kyle Cheney wrote for Politico on Friday that Trump's "unprecedented campaign to lock up thousands of immigrants with longstanding roots in the United States" is forcing families and even children to face off against these judges for trials that "have been fundamentally flawed or even pre-cooked." Some judges even decide that the individuals are a "danger to the community" or a "flight risk" without hearing evidence.
One immigration judge allegedly relied on "uncorroborated police reports" given by the detainee himself. He was released. Another, in Missouri, found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers called the migrant a flight risk "without sufficient evidence."
The ready-made rulings are starting to infuriate federal judges, who are demanding "do-overs," the report said. In some cases, the judges don't even do re-trials; they simply order the person to be released. U.S. District Judge Irene Berger, a Democratic appointee, concluded a bond hearing by saying it would be pointless. Her GOP-appointed counterpart agreed, saying it “would be futile."
“The bond hearing has indications of predetermined outcome,” complained U.S. District Judge Douglas Harpool. “The [immigration judge’s] order enumerates that Petitioner: has been in the U.S. for 9 years, has not missed a court hearing, has family in the U.S. (husband and 3 children), and owns a home and operates a business in the U.S. The IJ’s determination regarding flight risk is clearly untethered by the facts and any logical conclusion to be determined from the facts.”
Cheney wrote that federal law forbids the courts from second-guessing “discretionary” bonds made by the "immigration judges."
“These federal judges simply disagree with the outcomes of the immigration judge bond decisions,” a Justice Department spokesperson told Politico. “They are impugning the integrity or competence of our immigration judges solely to give them a hook to review the IJ decisions they disagree with but would otherwise be unable to directly review.”
