By A federal district judge in West Texas has drawn sharp criticism from immigration enforcement advocates after issuing a ruling they say effectively manufactures amnesty “out of thin air,” sidestepping controlling appellate precedent and undercutting the Trump administration’s detention authority.
In a recent order from El Paso, David Briones, a Clinton appointee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, reaffirmed his position that noncitizens who have lived in the United States for a “substantial period” acquire a constitutional “liberty interest” that shields them from prolonged detention without due process.
Briones wrote: “The Court reiterates its original holding that noncitizens who have ‘established connections’ in the United States by virtue of living in the country for a substantial period acquire a liberty interest in being free from government detention without due process of law.”
The ruling comes just days after a 2–1 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which upheld the administration’s authority to detain so-called “unadmitted aliens” without bond eligibility, regardless of how long they have been physically present in the country. The Fifth Circuit endorsed broad detention powers as part of accelerated deportation efforts under President Trump’s second term.
Judge Briones dismissed the appellate ruling’s relevance to the constitutional claims before him, stating that the 5th Circuit’s holding “has no bearing” on due process analysis. Critics argue that this move amounts to open defiance of binding precedent, substituting a policy preference for statutory interpretation.
Briones has long been a judicial advocate for illegal immigrants in America. Last year, he prevented the Trump administration from using the Enemy Aliens Act to remove suspected Tren de Aragua gang members in the Western District of Texas.
The Western District of Texas has become a central battleground in the administration’s expanded no-bond detention policy. More than 1,300 habeas corpus petitions have been filed there in recent months, part of more than 18,000 nationwide since mass detention and removal operations intensified.
At least one other judge in the district, Kathleen Cardone, a Bush appointee, has granted releases or bond hearings in similar cases. Those rulings likewise rely on constitutional “liberty interest” reasoning, despite the Fifth Circuit’s recent endorsement of the administration’s statutory detention authority.
To enforcement advocates, the theory advanced by Briones and others effectively rewards prolonged unlawful presence. Rather than treating extended time in the country without lawful status as a factor supporting removal, the court’s framework converts that very fact into a constitutional shield against detention.
Benjamin Weingarten, a senior contributor to The Federalist, reacted on Twitter explained what’s happening: “Just unelected federal judges working towards inventing amnesty out of thin air.”
Just unelected federal judges working towards inventing amnesty out of thin air pic.twitter.com/Q4KQzavLjK
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) February 11, 2026
Supporters of the rulings, including immigrant rights groups, contend that the Due Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the United States and requires individualized hearings before prolonged detention. They argue that bond hearings do not confer legal status but merely prevent indefinite confinement without review.
The legal clash underscores how radical liberal judges, being upset that they can’t win at the ballot box, have taken matters into their own hands. Immigration detention authority is granted by statute and exercised by the executive branch, but district courts retain the power to hear habeas petitions alleging constitutional violations. When those courts reinterpret the scope of constitutional protections in ways that narrow enforcement tools, the result is a direct collision between executive authority and judicial review.
Legal observers expect the issue to return quickly to the Fifth Circuit and potentially to the Supreme Court, particularly given the district court’s explicit refusal to treat the appellate ruling as controlling.
For now, Judge Briones’s order opens a pathway for certain detainees with lengthy U.S. residence to seek release or bond hearings—even as the administration continues to pursue aggressive deportation policies.
[Read More: Liberals Launch Racist Attack Against Republican]
