Federal Judges Rebuke ICE Over Arrest Tactics at Daycares and Schools
Federal judges across the United States are issuing increasingly sharp rebukes against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding the agency’s recent arrest and detention practices. While recent attention has focused on rulings from Texas, similar judicial outrage is emerging in Minnesota, where U.S. District Judge John Tunheim recently condemned the arrest of a daycare cook executed in full view of families.
In a ruling granting a writ of habeas corpus for the petitioner, identified in court documents as Norma V.A., Judge Tunheim expressed deep concern over the nature of the enforcement operation. “The Court is disturbed by the facts of this case,” Tunheim wrote. “Respondents’ arrest of Petitioner—as children, and their parents dropping them off at daycare, looked on—was unlawful.” The judge ordered her immediate release, highlighting that the public nature of the arrest at a childcare facility crossed legal and humanitarian lines.
This ruling is part of a broader pattern of judicial pushback described by legal observers as a “revolt” against current enforcement strategies. It follows a widely publicized order by U.S. District Judge Fred Biery in Texas, who demanded the release of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father. Judge Biery’s opinion criticized the administration’s “ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas,” arguing that such quotas appeared to be prioritized “even if it requires traumatizing children.” Biery’s ruling notably cited the Declaration of Independence and included a photograph of the detained child.
In Minnesota, the conflict between the judiciary and federal immigration authorities has intensified beyond individual cases. Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz recently noted that ICE had violated at least 96 separate court orders in January 2026 alone. Schiltz warned that the agency is “not a law unto itself” and observed that the number of violations in a single month exceeded what some agencies commit in their entire existence.
Administration officials and ICE leadership maintain that agents are acting within their statutory authority to enforce immigration laws and secure the interior of the United States. The executive branch has argued in various proceedings that federal agents possess “absolute immunity” in the performance of their duties and that the judiciary is overstepping its bounds by interfering with executive enforcement priorities. Supporters of the crackdown assert that the arrests are necessary to clear backlogs and uphold the rule of law regarding illegal entry and visa overstays.
Despite these arguments, the judiciary’s written opinions reflect growing alarm over the collateral consequences of these operations, particularly when they involve minors or occur in sensitive community locations like schools and daycares.
rnz.co.nz
theweek.com
justia.com
dianeravitch.net
indiatimes.com
cbsnews.com
straitstimes.com
truthout.org
