NEW: More than 100 judges have ruled against the Trump admin's mandatory detention policy

[In It to Win It]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/31/trump-administration-mandatory-detention-deportation-00632086

It’s one of the most thorough legal rebukes in recent memory.

More than 100 federal judges have now ruled at least 200 times that the Trump administration’s effort to systematically detain immigrants facing possible deportation appeared to violate their rights or was just flatly illegal, according to a POLITICO review.

The rulings come from judges appointed by every president since Ronald Reagan, including 12 appointed by President Donald Trump. One of those appointees took the bench just last month.

Since July 8, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement reversed 30 years of practice and determined that ICE must lock up everyone facing deportation — even if they’ve lived in the country for decades and have no criminal record — federal courts have issued increasing warnings. The new ICE policy, they note, doesn’t just subject millions more people to detention while they fight deportation, it also bars them from even asking an immigration judge to consider releasing them on bond.

“Courts around the country have since rejected the government’s new interpretation,” U.S. District Judge Kyle Dudek, a Florida-based Trump appointee, ruled Wednesday. “This Court now joins the consensus.”

NEW: More than 100 federal judges have now rejected the Trump administration’s new policy to lock up nearly everyone facing deportation — including 12 judges appointed by Trump, according to a POLITICO analysis.

Only 2 judges have sided with ICE.

www.politico.com/news/2025/10...

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney.bsky.social) 2025-10-31T20:32:24.906Z

[AZJonnie]

1. Kind of amazing, viewed in this light, that Trump just continues to order ICE to do pretty much whatever the fuck

I wonder if it's even true that:

" Anyone in the U.S. who is an “applicant for admission” to the country is subject to “mandatory detention,” ICE argues. "

in the sense that it IS mandatory (i.e. previously under the law) that they are physically detained. And if so, detained until what point, exactly? I'm sure *some* are subject to detention, perhaps even "mandatory" detention if certain criteria are met, but I cannot imagine it's accurate to say the US locks up every single applicant for admission for some indeterminate amount of time, which is what Trump and ICE have recently decided they have every right, even an obligation, to do.

IOW aside from the question of whether people who have already been living here are rightly in the class of "applicants for admission", I'm not even sure that ICE was ever understood to have a directive to "physically detain" them in a mandatory kind of sense. Even if they did, I'd think ankle monitors have been in the past considered as meeting that obligation, no?

Trump thinks he's Lord God King, though, doesn't he?