Federal Courts Strained as Trump Administration Escalates Deportation Efforts
President Donald Trump’s administration is rapidly intensifying its efforts to arrest and deport individuals, employing a combination of street-level federal officer deployments and sweeping changes to immigration policy that have fundamentally altered the landscape of immigration enforcement.
This week, a government attorney's emotional breakdown in front of a federal judge highlighted the growing tensions between the administration's aggressive deportation strategy and the legal professionals tasked with managing the resulting flood of litigation.
The administration's push to detain and deport tens of thousands of undocumented individuals—often without allowing them a fair chance to contest their cases before being placed in indefinite detention—has led to an overwhelming number of lawsuits that are inundating courts and taxing prosecutors.
“This system sucks” and “this job sucks,” lamented one government lawyer during the proceedings. Even the top federal prosecutor in Minnesota, appointed by Trump, acknowledged that the workload is “crushing” for his team.
Judges across the nation are attributing this crisis to the Trump administration’s own actions, which they argue have undermined due process rights in blatant disregard for constitutional protections.
Last summer, the administration revised its legal guidance regarding arrests made by federal immigration officers, declaring that anyone present in the country without legal status could be subjected to mandatory detention without the opportunity for a bond hearing.
This shift resulted in a surge of habeas corpus petitions—lawsuits challenging arrests and detentions—flooding federal courts nationwide, demanding judicial justification for these actions.
Despite numerous court rulings against the administration’s policies, with judges consistently emphasizing that these practices violate the Fourth Amendment, officials continue to rely on these controversial policies to detain thousands.
New petitions are inundating court dockets weekly, leaving government attorneys overwhelmed and prompting many to resign under the pressure of an unsustainable workload.
Prosecutors feel demoralized, defense attorneys are struggling to keep pace, and judges are issuing stern orders with urgent warnings about the implications for democracy. Meanwhile, immigrants caught in this turmoil remain trapped in detention following abrupt arrests or are released after enduring days or months in ICE custody, their lives irrevocably disrupted.
This week, Minnesota District Judge Jerry R. Blackwell sought answers from government officials regarding their “alarming” failures to comply with court orders for releasing detainees.
Julie Le, a Homeland Security attorney assigned to assist with the caseload in Minnesota’s U.S. Attorney’s office, expressed her frustration. “Sometimes I wish you would just hold me in contempt, your honor,” she told the judge, “so that I can have a full 24 hours of sleep.”
In January alone, lawyers representing detained immigrants in Minnesota filed over 400 petitions for release from ICE, a staggering increase from just six petitions at the same time last year, as noted by one judge.
In Texas, where a large ICE detention center houses numerous immigrant families, one judge reported having 134 habeas petitions on his docket, with 20 to 25 new filings arriving each week.
Simultaneously, orders for the release of these immigrants are accumulating, yet the government appears either too slow to respond or is outright ignoring them.
Last week, Chief Federal Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of Minnesota criticized the administration after discovering that ICE had violated nearly 100 court orders related to the recent influx of officers into Minneapolis—more violations than some federal agencies have committed throughout their entire existence.
“ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this court,” Judge Schiltz stated, emphasizing that “like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated.”
In a separate ruling last week, Judge Fred Biery from the Western District of Texas ordered the release of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father, who “seek nothing more than some modicum of due process and the rule of law.”
He criticized the government's pursuit of daily deportation quotas as “ill-conceived and incompetently implemented,” noting that while courts regularly order undocumented individuals to be deported, they do so through proper legal channels.
In West Virginia last month, Judge Joseph R. Goodwin similarly condemned the administration’s tactics, highlighting how individuals are apprehended during routine activities and confined without prompt hearings or individualized assessments, often far from legal counsel and support networks.
To manage the influx of new habeas petitions, Minnesota prosecutors have been compelled to divert resources from other critical areas, including criminal cases. U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen noted that his civil litigation team has been reduced by “50 percent” due to a mass departure of experienced prosecutors responding to the administration’s handling of Operation Metro Surge.
Rosen is now urging a federal appeals court to expedite a resolution on a pivotal issue affecting numerous cases nationwide: Can ICE continue detaining individuals without providing them a hearing?
If a timely decision is not reached, resources in Minnesota will continue to be depleted as hundreds more habeas petitions are filed, jeopardizing other essential responsibilities and priorities within the office.
In response, attorneys representing the immigrant at the center of this case argued that the outcome could significantly impact not only his freedom but also that of “countless individuals who are similarly situated.” They urged the court to deliberate carefully on this matter “without being pressured by the government’s self-inflicted crises.”
