Federal appeals court in Chicago has continued to block the release of hundreds of people detained by immigration authorities, but the ruling also rejected a key argument used by the Trump administration to hold individuals in mandatory detention.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by US District Judge Jeffrey Cummings to extend into February the Castanon Nava settlement agreement, which restricts the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to make warrantless arrests in Illinois and nearby states. The ruling was met with mixed results for the Trump administration.
The court rejected a novel argument that had been used by the Trump administration to hold people in mandatory detention. This practice has been widely criticized and rejected by district courts across the country, including US District Judge Jeremy Daniel, who recently released Ruben Torres Maldonado from detention after his arrest disrupted his teenager daughter's cancer treatment.
The court ultimately agreed to block a separate order by Cummings in November, which sought to release up to 615 people who were still held by immigration authorities and do not pose a high safety risk. However, the ruling reduced this number to 442, with roughly half of them potentially eligible for release if individual determinations are made about whether their arrests violated the settlement agreement.
The appeals court faulted Cummings for making a blanket finding that detainees were "potential" class members of the lawsuit, given the numerous instances where their rights were violated. However, Mark Fleming, associate director of federal litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center, said that Cummings' determination was based on incomplete information provided by the Justice Department.
Fleming vowed to push hard to obtain those records quickly and review them as soon as possible to reach a decision on the detainees' fate. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The three-judge panel heard arguments in the case just two weeks ago, with Judge John Lee, Thomas Kirsch, and Doris Pryor making their decisions. While Kirsch wrote a scathing dissent, arguing that Cummings' orders should be blocked entirely, Lee found some merit in his concerns while emphasizing the importance of judges following the law.
In essence, the ruling highlights the complexities and nuances of immigration policy and the need for careful consideration by judges to ensure that individual rights are protected.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by US District Judge Jeffrey Cummings to extend into February the Castanon Nava settlement agreement, which restricts the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to make warrantless arrests in Illinois and nearby states. The ruling was met with mixed results for the Trump administration.
The court rejected a novel argument that had been used by the Trump administration to hold people in mandatory detention. This practice has been widely criticized and rejected by district courts across the country, including US District Judge Jeremy Daniel, who recently released Ruben Torres Maldonado from detention after his arrest disrupted his teenager daughter's cancer treatment.
The court ultimately agreed to block a separate order by Cummings in November, which sought to release up to 615 people who were still held by immigration authorities and do not pose a high safety risk. However, the ruling reduced this number to 442, with roughly half of them potentially eligible for release if individual determinations are made about whether their arrests violated the settlement agreement.
The appeals court faulted Cummings for making a blanket finding that detainees were "potential" class members of the lawsuit, given the numerous instances where their rights were violated. However, Mark Fleming, associate director of federal litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center, said that Cummings' determination was based on incomplete information provided by the Justice Department.
Fleming vowed to push hard to obtain those records quickly and review them as soon as possible to reach a decision on the detainees' fate. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The three-judge panel heard arguments in the case just two weeks ago, with Judge John Lee, Thomas Kirsch, and Doris Pryor making their decisions. While Kirsch wrote a scathing dissent, arguing that Cummings' orders should be blocked entirely, Lee found some merit in his concerns while emphasizing the importance of judges following the law.
In essence, the ruling highlights the complexities and nuances of immigration policy and the need for careful consideration by judges to ensure that individual rights are protected.
so like, the court is trying to balance these super complex rules and laws when it comes to immigration detention 
but meanwhile, these people are stuck in limbo waiting for their fate 
442 people, yeah that's a lot! 
they need help, like stat 
but the court says they gotta wait because of all the stuff with the settlement agreement 
and some judge thinks it's not fair 
that's kinda what these people are going through 
and now the National Immigrant Justice Center is trying to get more info 
because apparently, there was some incomplete info provided by the Justice Department 
but i guess that's kinda what happens when you're dealing with super complicated stuff like immigration policy 
maybe they can find a way to make it more fair and less stressful for everyone involved 
. And what really gets me is the fact that some judges are having a hard time figuring out what's going on because of incomplete info from the government 
. It's like, come on guys, get it together!
. And maybe, just maybe, this whole ordeal will lead to some real changes in how immigration laws are handled 
. It's not right that they're being held without a good reason, especially when there's already a settlement agreement in place to protect their rights 
. It's not just about getting people out of detention, but also about making sure they're treated fairly and with dignity 
. We need more organizations like this one working towards real change 
.
. Who else is following this case?
, platform loyalist here! So they're trying to block releases but it's not all doom and gloom 
. The fact that the appeals court rejected a key argument is a win for justice, imo. I mean, who needs blanket statements when you've got incomplete info? 
It's all about protecting those rights and making sure the system works fair.
.
. We're talking about people's lives, their freedom, and their right to a fair trial. It's not just about the Trump administration or the court case; it's about the principles of justice that we should all be fighting for 
. So, even with some mixed results, I'm feeling pretty optimistic about this 
i dont know what Mark Fleming's next move will be but pls keep pushing for those records ASAP 
like what is the point of having a system if it just gonna drag people out and hold them for years on end? 
i mean who gets to decide if someone is a "potential" class member or not? like how do we even trust those determinations? 
. And what really gets my goat is when judges have to make blanket decisions based on incomplete info... doesn't that just sound like bureaucratic red tape? 
so like 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocks release of hundreds more people detained by ICE... but also says Trump admin's plan to keep them in detention is whack 
can't just blanket-fail everyone, that's not how it works 
. i mean, we've seen cases where detainees' rights have been severely violated and now those same individuals are stuck in limbo 
so we can get some real answers about what's going to happen next 
& it's crazy how much red tape there is in immigration policy 
... but at the same time, I don't think it's a good idea either, 'cause like, what if most of them are actually a threat?