Sign up for The Brief, a daily newsletter that keeps readers informed about the most important news from Texas.
The audio recording is automated to ensure accessibility. The article was crafted and edited by humans. Please review our AI policy and provide us with your feedback.
Federal courts in Texas have recently seen a surge in lawsuits challenging immigration detention, as the state holds the highest number of migrant detainees in the nation.
These lawsuits are part of a broader trend of habeas corpus petitions initiated by attorneys in recent months, aimed at countering the administration’s efforts to keep migrants in detention and expedite their deportation.
In some instances, legal representatives have invoked the Laken Riley Act, the first piece of legislation signed by President Donald Trump this year, which mandates the detention of undocumented immigrants accused of even minor offenses, to support their clients’ requests for release.
This change in legal tactics is a direct response to the federal government’s heightened immigration enforcement, which followed Trump’s campaign promises of mass deportations, alongside a directive issued in July that expanded mandatory detention policies.
By mid-November, over 65,100 individuals were in ICE detention nationwide, with Texas facilities housing more than 25% of this total.
Traditionally, detained migrants seeking release would request bond hearings in immigration courts, which are overseen by the Department of Justice and operate separately from state and federal courts.
However, in July, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) revised its interpretation of federal law, declaring that individuals who entered the U.S. without authorization are ineligible for bond if detained. Previously, bond was mostly denied only to those who had just arrived at the border.
This shift was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals in September, effectively ending bond hearings in immigration courts for millions, including long-term residents.
Consequently, attorneys have turned to federal courts, filing over 675 immigration-related habeas petitions in Texas from January to November, as per an analysis of federal court records. This figure surpasses the total number of such petitions submitted during Trump’s entire first term, with over 70% filed in just the last quarter.
“I have been closely monitoring the increase in habeas litigation, and it is indeed a significant phenomenon,” remarked Denise Gilman, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin. “I have never witnessed this level of habeas activity before.”
Gilman noted that this strategy is proving effective in challenging mandatory detention policies.
Nationally, more than 200 judges overseeing over 700 cases have ruled in favor of migrants filing habeas petitions, while only eight judges have denied them. Among the favorable rulings, at least 12 judges are in Texas, as tracked by the American Immigration Council and Kate Melloy Goettel, director of the University of Iowa’s Federal Impact Litigation Clinic.
However, winning a habeas petition does not guarantee immediate release for detained migrants. Many will still need to appear before an immigration judge for bond hearings, where various factors, including flight risk and public safety, will be considered.
Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, stated that the federal government is enforcing the law as written. She asserted that the Trump administration is “fulfilling the American people’s mandate to deport dangerous illegal aliens at historic rates” and dismissed the habeas petitions as “a desperate last-ditch effort to keep illegal aliens in our communities, despite their lack of legal standing.”
In a recent ruling, a federal judge in California sided against the Trump administration in a case involving four individuals denied bond hearings after long-term detention in Los Angeles. This decision, celebrated by immigration advocates, certified a nationwide class for similarly affected individuals, extending the ruling against the new detention policy nationwide.
However, many detained migrants, particularly those unable to afford legal representation, may still struggle to benefit from the judge’s decision, as highlighted by Goettel.
“Unfortunately, those without legal counsel won’t have anyone to advocate for them regarding the applicability of the class action, which raises the possibility that the judge won’t recognize it,” she explained.
Shahrokh Rahimi, 53, is among the immigrants seeking assistance from federal courts to secure his release from ICE detention.
Rahimi has resided in San Antonio for over twenty years after fleeing political persecution in Iran and entering the U.S. illegally from Canada in 2003, as stated in his habeas petition. Encouraged by his wife, whom he married in the U.S., Rahimi sought legal immigration status. In 2010, an immigration judge ordered his removal from the U.S. to any country other than Iran, necessitating the government’s identification of a third country willing to accept him.
For the past 15 years, according to his petition, Rahimi has complied with regular check-ins at the local ICE office. He has also actively participated in his church, cared for his 12-year-old daughter, and worked as a professional caretaker, assisting a retired woman with transport, cleaning, and shopping.
However, on June 22, ICE agents detained Rahimi at home and transferred him to the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, where he has remained for over five months.
“My daughter is in the background, crying and asking, ‘What’s happening, what’s happening?'” recounted his wife, Brandi Rahimi, 50. “We heard they were targeting criminals… My husband has no criminal history, so why would they come for him?”
A search of Bexar County and federal court records revealed no criminal history for Rahimi, aside from a 2023 speeding ticket that was dismissed after he completed a driver safety course.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to inquiries regarding the rationale behind his detention.
While in custody, Rahimi sought to rescind his removal order in immigration court in late August. He also requested a bond hearing, which was denied in September, prompting the Texas Civil Rights Project to file the habeas petition on his behalf a month later.
According to his wife, it took three months before Rahimi stopped crying during family calls. At home, she noted the challenges posed by his absence, including financial strain and childcare difficulties. Their daughter has particularly struggled with the separation.
“If she doesn’t receive a call from him in the morning, she becomes distraught,” Brandi Rahimi shared.
On Monday, an immigration judge ordered Rahimi’s removal once again; however, his wife stated that the ban on deportation to Iran remains in effect, and their legal team has appealed the judge’s ruling.
Additionally, a federal judge has scheduled a hearing for his habeas petition on December 10, as noted by Danny Woodward, an attorney with the TCRP. Brandi Rahimi continues to hope her husband will be home for Christmas.
“Please keep us in your thoughts,” she requested in her GoFundMe campaign on Monday.
To strengthen Rahimi’s legal position in the petition, Woodward is partially relying on an unexpected legal tool: the Laken Riley Act.
Enacted in January, this federal law mandates the detention of any undocumented immigrant arrested or charged with even minor offenses such as shoplifting. The act was named after a Georgia nursing student killed by an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela, who had previously faced charges for shoplifting.
While the legislation garnered some bipartisan support, immigration advocates argue that it undermines due process rights.
Nevertheless, some attorneys are now leveraging the Laken Riley Act to contest the expanded mandatory detention policies.
Their argument posits that the Trump administration’s new detention policy reinterprets established immigration law to render all individuals who entered the U.S. illegally ineligible for bond. If ICE’s interpretation holds true, they question why Congress felt the need to enact new legislation to mandate the detention of a smaller group of undocumented immigrants accused of crimes.
“ICE’s entire premise cannot be valid if we assume that Congress enacted the Laken Riley Act for a specific purpose,” stated Dan Gividen, an immigration attorney who previously served as deputy chief counsel for ICE in Dallas. “If undocumented immigrants lacked the right to bond, there would have been no necessity for the Laken Riley Act.”
DHS’s McLaughlin did not address the specific question regarding this argument.
In recent months, Gividen has filed over 25 habeas petitions for detained migrants, including many represented by attorneys who may not be as familiar with this particular approach in federal courts.
While many of these petitions remain unresolved, court records indicate that judges, both appointed by Democratic and Republican administrations, have thus far recommended or ordered the release of migrants or granted them bond hearings in eight lawsuits. Additionally, in one case, ICE released an individual prior to the judge’s ruling.
Gividen remarked that securing these petitions has become increasingly feasible in Texas following changes in federal policy. “ICE flew too close to the sun,” he observed.
This article is supported by various financial contributors, including Politico and the University of Texas at Austin. However, these supporters do not influence the journalistic content of this publication. A complete list of financial supporters is available for review.
To learn more about our policies, including our partnership with The
