Federal Judge Orders Over 600 ICE Detainees To Be Released From Custody
The order was made after finding that these individuals were arrested without a warrant or probable cause, and in violation of a consent decree.
A federal judge in Chicago ordered roughly 600 people to be released from immigration detention on Wednesday. The individuals, the judge found, had been arrested in violation of a 2022 consent decree designed to ensure immigration agents have probable cause before making warrantless arrests. The decision is yet another legal blow to "Operation Midway Blitz," the ongoing immigration operation in Chicago meant to help fulfill President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda.
During Wednesday's hearing, United States District Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings stressed that those identified will not be released if they pose a risk to public safety, according to the Chicago Sun-Times' Jon Seidel, and noted that not all of them will still be in custody. "There might be quite a few of them who are already gone," Cummings continued, referring to detainees who are eligible for relief but who may have already been deported.
The consent decree was meant to ensure that the agencies complied with federal law, which stipulates that immigration officers may only make a warrantless arrest if two conditions are met: first, immigration officers must have "reason to believe" that the individual is in the U.S. in violation of any immigration law or regulation and, second, that they are likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Critically, without having both, there is no probable cause to make a warrantless arrest.
In October, Cummings found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had made warrantless arrests of individuals without the necessary probable cause and had been violating the consent decree since Trump took office in January. Since then, attorneys have been trying to determine who has been arrested by ICE this year in violation of the agreement—and who still remains in the country—to provide relief.
But Cummings' decision to release 615 immigrant detainees likely doesn't cover the full extent of warrantless arrests made in violation of the 2022 agreement. Mark Fleming of the National Immigrant Justice Center, one of the legal groups that filed on behalf of plaintiffs in the case, believes that warrantless arrests without probable cause may be happening daily in the Chicago area. The organization's list of people it has identified who were arrested in violation of the settlement has grown to over 3,000.
"As we're digging into it, we are very concerned that many, if not most [of ICE arrests], are violations of our consent decree," Fleming told 7 Eyewitness News, a local ABC affiliate. "We've started to dig into the case file [DHS and ICE] produced to us, and the vast majority are violations," he continued. "If they did not have a prior order of removal, in almost all circumstances, they've been uniformly violating the consent decree."
Cummings's October ruling and Wednesday's decision to release immigrant detainees not only underscore the importance of establishing probable cause in immigration arrests but also deliver an important check on immigration enforcement. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh came under scrutiny in September for blessing racial profiling by immigration agents, writing that it was "common sense" to allow officers to use "relevant factors," like ethnicity, spoken language, and location, to conduct an investigatory stop. But Cummings' ruling would limit immigration agents' ability to arrest any individuals stopped in the Chicago area because of racial profiling by requiring a determination as to whether they also pose a flight risk. His decision—which only applies to ICE's Chicagoland area of authority, including Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky, and Kansas—could go on to influence the outcome of similar cases in other jurisdictions.
Wednesday's ruling to release hundreds of immigrant detainees is surely a victory for those who are still trapped in detention, but less so for those who are no longer in the country and, therefore, have no avenue for relief. With ICE moving so much faster than the courts, the agency may not feel many real consequences for flouting the rights of those—including American citizens—who come in contact with the growing immigration industrial complex. Until it does, federal immigration agents are sure to violate more people's rights for the foreseeable future.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Show us the legal reasoning that a consent agreement made under Biden becomes the new law of the land. Because that's what this judge ordered. Is this the legal framework you desire?
It's "yet another legal blow" the way Julie Swetnick's allegations were "yet another legal blow" to Brett Kavanaugh's superficially credible claims that he didn't rape anyone.
A consent decree is binding until and unless it either expires or you return to court to get it undone. A change of administration is not and never has been sufficient to revoke the "consent".
That does raise the moral hazard of 'sue and settle' conspiracy - which I think was your point even though you didn't use those words. But that's a much larger problem than just this one consent decree. So, yeah, until we fix that problem, the consent agreement becoming "the new law of the land" is the law and has been for a long time.
Updated: I see that you do use the 'sue and settle' language below. Yes, that is a serious problem. But simply abrogating the agreement is not a viable solution. Perhaps there needs to be a more formal process whereby the next administration can revoke consent but doing so automatically restarts the suit that started it? Perhaps with a stipulation than settling is no long an option and a decision on the merits is mandatory? Not sure. It's a tricky problem.
And how exactly do you get standing to return to court other than by violating it? This is the first step, not the slam dunk counter Autumn pretends it to be.
The overall problem here is the moral hazard you note and even the over regulation and legal paralysis that makes such twisting of the rules attractive.
This^
Yes. You have to violate the decree and suffer harm to have standing to challenge it. The harm to the executive is obvious in this case and this judge may have opened the door to overturning the decree itself upon which his judgement relies.
So you support from court agreements sans actual judicial adversarial rulings. I do not. There is no form of this type of rule making in the constitution.
Maybe youre fine with bypassing constitutional construction to avoid the legislature, I am not.
The INA is clear on the terms of who controls immigration related duties. It literally excludes article 3.
Youre arguing solely because you enjoy the outcome.
Ignoring unconstitutional judicial orders actually should be the standard. Just like when judges ordered dispersement of tens of billions of dollars. Especially when done in inferior Courts.
Consent decrees should be time bound and treated as an executive order, able to be undone by future administration's as they have no constitutional binding.
Ironically the USSC has ruled on this type of behavior with congress when they stated congress can not bind a future congress.
No, I'm not arguing because I like the outcome. I despise it. But I do sometimes like the outcome of consent decrees in other cases. That means the entire process is broken.
To your proposals:
- "Ignoring unconstitutional judicial orders should be the standard."
Maybe. On the one hand, a single district court judge should not be able to make sweeping decisions that effectively set national policy and bypass Congress. On the other hand, a single executive branch official (even the President) shouldn't have that power either. I think the right answer here is to return to very old judicial norms. Judges can make determinations that bind the parties before them. National injunctions need to die a fiery death. Force all such cases into class actions which have better controls and limits.
- "Consent decrees should be time bound"
Absolutely agree.
- "Consent decrees should be ... able to be undone by future administrations" at will
Disagree strongly. Some consent decrees are 'consented to' in bad faith - the sue-and-settle problem. But other consent decrees are sorely needed fixes to otherwise intractable problems. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion says that the moral hazard of sue-and-settle is so bad that we have to take settlements off the table entirely. That means putting the court (and us taxpayers) on the hook for lengthy, expensive trials even when the offending agency actually is guilty and is willing to admit it. That is going too far.
“No, I'm not arguing because I like the outcome.”
Jesse is trying to make it personal so he can attack you and ignore what you say? Must be a day that ends with’y’.
And Sarc is being a drunken troll just so he can attack Jesse, because Arizona man bad.
It would help if you werent an ignorant retard and actually understood the argument.
The president is acting under the authority of the INA as written. But your demand seems to be act under the discretion of a consent decree not in law. These two things are in opposition.
A consent decree is essentially a government agreeing to an EO through a judicial measure. Outside of obamas eternal EOs, future president have always been able to undo prior EOs. That should be the standard.
re: "The president is acting under the authority of the INA as written"
I do not believe that is true but my opinion is irrelevant. More importantly, the court did not believe that to be true when it approved the consent decree. Nor did the executive branch believe that to be true when it consented to the decree.
Which brings us back to the problem of the next administration disagreeing. If the first consent was in good faith, I don't see a valid policy argument for unilaterally voiding the settlement of the litigation. The government certainly wouldn't let your company out of a consent decree or other legal settlement simply because you replaced your CEO with someone who thought the prior legal strategy and settlement decision was a bad choice. Settlements are generally something we want to encourage but that won't happen if they can be abrogated at will. Which leaves only the moral hazard problem of consents in bad faith - the sue-and-settle problem. I agree that's a problem but your proposed cure is worse than the disease.
Every eo is theoretically done in good faith. They can still be undone except for the magic Obama ones.
Again, you keep avoiding the mechanism of law that allows these to become the new law.
I think I see the sticking point. Consent decrees are not like executive orders. EOs can be issued at the whim of the executive. That means they should be equally easy to overturn when the political winds change. Consent decrees, on the other hand, are the resolutions of filed lawsuits with parties on the other side of the settlement whose interests will be harmed if the terms are violated.
Let's put this in terms of a more conventional settlement. As CEO, you decide that you're going to instruct your employees to hand out free ice cream to all customers. A year later, you (or your successor) change your mind and revoke that policy. No one can claim to be harmed by your decision to stop doing something you weren't obligated to do in the first place.
Contrast that with a lawsuit alleging that you illegally overpriced your ice cream (through monopoly power, price fixing, contract violations, whatever - this might not have been the best example but I'm too far in now) and you actually were doing the things you were accused of. Rather than fighting a sure-loser lawsuit, you settle and agree to not do those bad things - plus maybe a few more things temporarily to make sure you stay on the straight-and-narrow. Again, a year later you (or your successor) decide that the settlement was a bad choice. You cannot simply stop complying with the settlement. Even if the bad thing that started the suit wasn't all that bad, you'd be breaking the contract you yourself signed.
Which brings up another point you (or maybe someone else?) said about Congress not being able to bind future congresses. That's true about their own strictly internal workings. They can pass a law saying 'votes on topic X require a supermajority vote' only because that law requiring the supermajority can be overturned by a simple majority. However, that rule does not apply to things affecting outsiders. If Congress enters into a contract or approves a treaty, future congresses are just as bound to the terms of that contract as the first one was. An EO is analogous to the legislative-internal rule. A settlement is a contract with an outsider.
So you think every due and settle outcome was done in good faith? Make no mistake, this is what this consent decree is so the only questions is are you stupid, retarded or just an evil progressive?
Maybe youre fine with bypassing constitutional construction to avoid the legislature, I am not.
Really?
Is he accusing people of what he is doing while he is doing it again?
I just want to see him rationalize this statement with his support for massive tariffs by EO.
His rationale is that you’re a poopy head. Poopy poopy head. Lots of poop. That means you’re wrong and he wins the argument. Duh.
Man you look retarded.
Methinks it is more than just a look.
At the border, legal expedited deportation does not require a warrant or a judge. There is no reason for this consent decree especially if the alien has not registered with the government and skipped a court appearance. It’s merely a non legislator legislating. The executive has clear power over immigration and scotus agrees. Ask Arizona.
Not "new law", it is 4A law from 1791.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Well this is a retarded take.
What "People"? Do you suppose the founders meant anyone from any country forever? I'd posit the 'People' means legal citizens of the USA.
Your posit is wrong.
Hopefully all those illegal alien rapefugees have already been deported.
The details of the consent decree are pretty thin here and if it somehow empowers a district court judge to dictate immigration policy, which is exclusively reserved to the executive, it's pretty suspect in my opinion. Can an executive forever grant title 2 powers to title 3 judges who have no constitutional jurisdiction? I don't know. But clearly the administration will seek a stay and they'll probably get it. Just don't break out the champagne quite yet Autumn.
Full disclosure. I haven't read the consent decree and I doubt Autumn has either but I'm open to argument.
Its similar to the sue and settle strategy under Obama and Biden. How they "made laws absent congress." Activist group sues, friendly administration settles to "create" a new law. Totally unconstitutional.
Yes. But this administration will absolutely challenge the legality and force the Court to confront it. Autumn should be careful about what she wishes for because she might get the opposite.
Not that she will ever address that should it come to pass. She is nothing if not steadfast in her service to the narrative, even yo the point of outright lies.
“She is nothing if not steadfast in her service to the narrative, even yo the point of outright lies.”
The fuck are you talking about? She’s not a Trump defender.
Immigration policy is dictated by Congress, not the President.
Nope. Congress can write laws, the executive enforces immigration law. The administration is currently enforcing existing law. The court has no jurisdiction.
Nope. Trump dictates the law and judges are supposed to shut up. Anyone who says otherwise is a Marxist leftist with TDS.
Said literally in an article where bidens executive changed the law through a consent decree.
This is how retarded sarc is.
The current controlling policy is the INA dumdum.
Open borders and no accountability is not immigration policy. There's no immigration to make policy about without a border.
Looking at the wording of the consent decree, at least as reported here, it seems to be primarily (maybe exclusively?) about the legal standards for warrantless arrest. That seems pretty squarely within the scope of judicial authority and not relevant to immigration policy at all.
The only connection to immigration I see is that it was an immigration enforcement agency that admitted to getting the arrest standards wrong. That's a policy problem but not an immigration policy.
This is false based on the actual language of the INA which has not been challenged in court and excludes article 3 in decision making.
Scotus has upheld these legal constructions for administrative duties in other regions of law outside the INA.
re: "the actual language of the INA"
Tell me more, please. What specific language are you referencing? (If too big to quote, at least a pointer? Thanks.)
Is it your belief a warrant is needed in execution of the INA? Have you actually ever read the INA?
Show me anywhere that a warrant is required. In each applicable section it states at determination of an agent (illegals) or determination of an immigration court (article 2 court)
https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigration-and-nationality-act
Absolutely nowhere does it require warrants for detainment during this process.
So instead of having me prove a negative, cite which section requires this.
I should also point out the law allows for detainment until determination of legal status is proven.
If that interpretation is true, then the INA is unconstitutional as written. No mere statute can override the plain text of the 4th Amendment.
So, yes, it is my belief that despite warrants not being spelled out in the INA they are nevertheless required because they are spelled out in the 4A.
So please explain your reasoning that exempts the INA from generally-applicable constitutional requirements.
Re-reading my comment, it was not artfully worded. Warrantless arrests are allowed if and only if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed (plus some exceptions not applicable here). The consent decree appears to me to merely require that the INS comply with that generally-applicable standard for arrest.
The INA states exactly what you state here. Upon suspicion of an immigration officer. Ie a warrant is not needed granted this suspicion. Glad we are back to my assertion being the right one.
Your mistake is conflating "suspicion" with "probable cause". They are not the same. More to the point, the consent decree's wording was, from everything I can tell, based on the government's own admission that they were using the wrong standard. If you don't like it, take it up with the administration that consented.
(And, yes, I recognize that this takes us back to sue-and-settle where we both agree on the problem but disagree about the solution.)
Did you really just go with the molly argument? Detainment has been a long held standard sans warranty. Arrests happen without warrants all the time. Detainment happens without warrants all the time.
What are you talking about?
Dude, You're on fire! This is masterfully argued and your adherence to principle is very refreshing.
Immigration cases are adjudicated in immigration courts that are a part of the executive branch. Their role is administrative. They issue administrative warrants and deportation orders. Congress can pass legislation to amend immigration law and the executive is tasked with enforcement of that law but outside of some extremely rare circumstances title 3 courts play no role and have no jurisdiction. An individual who is illegally present in the US does not enjoy the adversarial status of a citizen in a federal trial. Deportation is an administrative procedure enforced by the executive.
Unelected executive bureaucrats write rules in the form of regulations with the power of law, executive agents with absolute immunity enforce those regulations, then judges who are execute employees, not independent members of judiciary, rule on cases under the threat of being fired if their bosses feel they aren’t harsh enough.
The founders separated powers to prevent this very thing from happening.
Wasn’t it Congress who passed the law that set up the immigration courts, along with the rest of our current immigration system?
Can you point to the part of the Constitution that says Congress can delegate legislative and judicial powers to the executive branch, eliminating checks, balances, and separation of powers?
I can’t.
Can you defend it?
I can’t.
Pretty sure it’s the FYTW clause.
But seriously, as I understood the law doesn’t just create some bureaucracy that gets to make up the immigration rules, but explicitly sets out the system and how it should be enforced. And as illegal immigration is a civil offense and these are administrative courts, they aren’t stepping on the Judiciary’s toes (again, my understanding).
Now I’m gonna have to do homework and reread the actual statutes to see if my understanding is correct.
Congress wrote the INA retard.
if it somehow empowers a district court judge to dictate immigration policy, which is exclusively reserved to the executive, it's pretty suspect in my opinion.
That's been the problem with every district court ruling in the DNC's slow rolling judicial coup.
Create a problem, put it in front of a corrupt pet judge, and overpack the Supremes shadow docket which will let it roll until midterms they hope.
Yeah that's the strategy, a soft lawfare to convince the gullible, like the entire staff of Reason, that these inferior judges have jurisdiction where they have none. SCOTUS is pretty obviously getting tired of this bullshit but Roberts continues to claim that even Congress can't control these idiots by the only available mechanism, impeachment. And then everyone bitches about the shadow docket.
Released back to their country of origin.
I'm glad you agree with this process, Autumn.
“Until it does, federal immigration agents are sure to violate more people's rights for the foreseeable future.”
Stop saying ‘people’. Illegals aren’t people. People have papers.
You're not "people", you drunken wife-beating troll.
What rights were violated?
LOL... And Illegals (acts by people) go to jail whether they have papers or not.
It's humorous how you twist 'not having papers' into a legal-exemption.
Pardons for the Paperless!!!! /sarc
Anyone who breaks any law is illegal? Wow. Whenever I think you’ve reached peak retard you manage to prove me wrong.
By the way St. Reagan pardoned the paperless. Did you know that? He also championed free trade. Bet you didn’t know that either. If he were alive today he would not be welcome in Trump’s GOP. They’d spit on him.
Is there supposed to be a rebuttal in there somewhere?
You have to make a cogent argument if you want a rebuttal.
Neither of which do you appear capable of.
immigration officers must have "reason to believe" that the individual is in the U.S. in violation of any immigration law or regulation and, second, that they are likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
Of course they have "reason to believe". Pro-illegal immigrant activists might not like the reasons, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And if they are here illegally, not only are they "likely to escape"; they are IN THE ACT of escaping the law.
^^^ It's odd this seems too difficult for many in media and on the left to comprehend.
Squatters have the same property 'rights' as the 'owners' do! /s
People with jobs who pay their bills and don’t harm others, but don’t have papers, are on the same level of criminality as murderers and rapists. Yup. Papers are everything.
You might have noticed that MAGAs have some categories of illegal activity they really care about enforcing (immigration, drugs, insulting ICE agents), and those they do not (murder, child rape, attempted coup, and any crime committed by an LEO).
It’s not the activity. It’s who does the activity. Principals, not principles. They want Lady Justice to take off her blindfold and judge the person, not their actions.
So how long ago exactly DID you have your floating ribs removed?
Do you still beat your wife?
Whoa, misogynist bigot alert.
The 2025 term is "partner."
Your rules, not mine. You self-fellating weirdo.
Being anti-Trump and pro-liberty doesn’t equal leftist, because leftists are as hostile to liberty as Trump and his defenders. Too bad you lack the intelligence to understand that. You see criticism of Trump and equate it with support for everything you hate. That is incredibly stupid, and exactly what I expect from you.
You're talking to the OG#NT, Clown Nose. Now take your genitals out of your mouth and try to say something that makes sense for a change.
Impressive claim, given leftie prosecutors and judges known affinity for kiddie rapists and murderers.
But, but, but ... I pay some bills and didn't harm anyone (supposedly).
So why can't I break-in and live in your house UN-invited?
See LOOK! I'm paperless! I'm *entitled* to it!
/sarc.
Any BS it takes to TAKE what doesn't belong to them.
Equating being paperless with trespass is very collectivist of you.
Close ... If you're standing on your head. Try...
Equating being paperless with ownership is very collectivist of you.
Can anyone fluent in Retard translate that into English?
And here I thought you were perfectly fluent in Retard, Sarc.
If nobody 'owns' (paperless) anything then everyone owns everything (collectivist).
Did you really think your manipulative-deflection BS was fooling anyone but like-minded agenda driven criminal minds like yourself who wouldn't believe the exact same CRAP if it didn't *entitle* them to someone else's stuff?
You leftards are like children in a candy store making-up every excuse you can and throwing a childish temper so mommy & daddy will buy you a bag of candy instead of *EARNING* it the right way.
Barring outright anarchy (not the chaos kind, the “no hierarchical social constructs/stateless” kind), at some level the existence of Nation-States is going to be collectivist, don’t you think?
Protecting individual rights is collectivist?
No, and not what I was trying to argue.
Governments are instituted to secure those rights as well as the geographical area its citizens inhabit. What I was driving at was that at some point, that’s going to run into conflict with other Nation-states, or foreign individuals rights (that want to trade or immigrate, etc.).
Thus, Immigration and border enforcement is at least marginally collectivist in that it necessarily suppresses the immigrants individual Freedom of Movement for the destination countries codified immigration system. Wouldn’t you agree?
The word “leftist” actually has a meaning. Did you know that? It doesn’t mean anyone critical of Trump. It means collectivist. As in communism and socialism. As in “We’re all in it together which means The People, aka government, owns everything, and the job of government is to ensure equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.”
Words mean things. At least they used to.
“The word “leftist” actually has a meaning. Did you know that?”
I did. It generally refers to the political group that supports equity, social justice, and societal change/progress, tracing its roots back to the French Revolution and the people that were sometimes a bit too dogmatic in their adherence to revolution.
“It doesn’t mean anyone critical of Trump.”
I’ve never said or implied it does.
“It means collectivist. As in communism and socialism.”
I was prepared to argue collectivism isn’t inherently left or right, but thinking about it for a minute on a left-right axis where far left is maximum collective and far right is maximum individual, you’re correct. But that drives to the heart of my comment: that starting with ancap on the right, at some point to the left of that some form of government/nation-state is formed as a collective of individuals. But there’s a fair bit of gap between that point and a type of Borg collective.
You don't have papers? Birth Certificate? Have you never had to produce this in your life for non criminal purposes? How about showing ID when questioned? If you are questioned by law enforcement is this illegal? How about if you are detained to confirm your identity and your statements or answers to the questions are sufficient enough for your release? Is this legal?
That pesky 4A keeps getting in the way of Trump.
Never-mind that pesky 14A "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
The 4A applies to people, not illegals.
That is Correct.
When 'free people' break the law they loose the assurance of the Bill of Rights.
Precisely why the phrase "without due process of law" exists.
Based upon ... "No free man shall be seized" ... "by the lawful judgment of" ... "the law of the land".
Next BS excuse to invade someone else's house and get away with it.
"Federal Judge Orders . . . " Yawn. Stop reading.
Wake me up after the supreme court rules.
Release the approximate 600 illegal aliens over the Gulf of America.
Problem solved. Everyone now happy.
Reasonable suspension is all that is required for an arrest according to the law and recently affirmed by the scotus. This judge is attempting to create new law when saying law enforcement needs probable cause to arrest an illegal immigrant. That is in direct contradiction to scotus who ruled reasonable suspicion was all that was required. Why are Libertarians writing articles about judges who are blantantly violating the constitution and overstepping their authority yet not mentioning any of that but imply the rulings are somehow upholding the law. It is madness that Reason isn't condemning judges who are blantantly violating the constitution and overstepping their authority.
Because, apparently, Reason writers are all "open borders" and don't care about reason or the constitution when it comes to pro-illegal immigration.
It's pretty fucking simple: "Are you here legally?", "Can you prove it?" "You don't speak English - can you show that you're a tourist with a visa or any proof of citizenship?" No? Boom, there's your fucking probable cause.