Judges ruled immigrants “unlawfully detained” in Michigan. But many still can’t get out.
—
Many people locked up during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown have found a path to freedom by filing habeas corpus petitions in federal courts. For the most part, federal judges in Michigan have granted those petitions, requiring the government to give people bond hearings or release them.
Hundreds locked up in Michigan were granted bond in immigration court, according to a Michigan Public analysis of outcomes for about 500 cases. However, bond denials increased sharply starting in mid-January.
Court records reviewed by Michigan Public could not provide any single explanation for the apparent increase, although some believe immigration judges are being pressured to deny bond to people who were granted habeas.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), which oversees immigration courts, did not respond to questions for this story.
For many immigrants detained in Michigan, getting an immigration judge to grant bond is one of a few ways to get released. It doesn’t take long for word to spread when someone locked up in the North Lake Processing Center gets denied bond.
“It’s been a massive denial (of bond hearings),” said Luis Fernandez-Escalante, a Venezuelan asylum seeker who has spent nearly six months in the massive northern Michigan facility. “One day I witnessed at least ten people get denied a bond, one after the other.”
Several people detained inside North Lake, and some of their lawyers outside, are concerned the narrow path to freedom they thought they had through habeas corpus is closing.
Throughout the end of 2025, “we tended to see pretty reasonable bond outcomes for individuals who were granted habeas,” said Ruby Robinson, a senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC).
But, Robinson and other attorneys said, it seemed bond hearings were “almost being pre-ordained to be denied” earlier this year. Now, “when a bond is approved, I think that’s an exciting moment,” he said.
“Obviously a lot of what’s going on is in the hopes that people will just give up and self-deport. And I hate to say that,” said Lawrence Burman, a self-described Republican and immigration judge who retired in December after nearly three decades on the bench. “There’s never been anything like what’s been going on in this administration.”
The Department of Justice, which oversees immigration courts and appoints immigration judges, did not respond to an interview request or written questions for this story.
As the Trump administration ramped up immigration enforcement, it initiated a broad “mandatory detention” policy, a shift that led to thousands of immigrants being held without a bond hearing. Lawyers challenged the policy through a flood of habeas corpus petitions.
Michigan Public tracked more than 800 such petitions filed in Michigan’s two federal district courts. In most cases, judges found immigrants were being “unlawfully detained” in violation of their Fifth Amendment due process rights.
But “winning” a habeas case does not guarantee freedom. In many cases, the judge’s order gives the government a few business days to either release detainees or give them a bond hearing. And it requires the DOJ to file a “status report” detailing what happened.
Michigan Public reviewed status reports from about 500 cases where habeas petitions were granted in Michigan from November 2025 to mid-February 2026.
Data from those status reports provides a rare, if incomplete, window into what happens after federal judges decide immigrants are “unlawfully” detained at North Lake and four county jails that work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
“This data allowed us to see the actual trend and that it wasn’t just a figment of our imagination,” said MIRC attorney Robinson of the analysis. “It wasn’t just a pessimistic [view of] reality.”
Dozens of immigrants detained in the state were released after filing petitions in federal courts. About 200 more were granted bonds, giving them a chance at freedom — if they can afford it.
But many people, like Luis Fernandez-Escalante, were denied bond and remained detained.
Luis Fernandez-Escalante felt a glimmer of hope when he learned that a federal judge had granted him a bond hearing.
It was early February, and he could feel cold wind seeping through the small windows in his cell block, made worse by the inadequate heat coming from the facility’s furnace.
Luis Fernandez-Escalante and his wife, Filomena Chimaico, in 2025 after leaving one of their immigration check-in appointments. Fernandez-Escalante, a Venezuelan asylum seeker, is being detained at the North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin, MI after being denied bond.
All 40-year-old Fernandez-Escalante could think about was his wife, Filomena, his young daughter, his two little cats back home in Chicago and the possibility that they might not be apart for much longer.
Six days later the bond hearing came. Immigration Judge Ellen Karesh ruled him a “flight risk,” noting his family didn’t own property and had “minimal contacts” in the U.S.
“I don’t understand….since 2023, my wife and I have been working and going to school to study English and we’ve never missed an immigration check-in appointment,” he said.
That month at least 100 immigrants detained in Michigan who were granted habeas petitions were denied bond, many for similar reasons.
“Denied, because flight risk”
Immigration attorneys and former immigration judges who spoke to Michigan Public said they fear current immigration judges are no longer giving detainees a fair shot in bond hearings.
“There’s certainly been rumors amongst immigration attorneys, and these are substantiated by affidavits by former immigration judges, that there were instructions to judges to deny bonds based on flight risk if they were habeas cases,” said Daniel Caudillo, a former immigration judge who directs the Immigration Law Clinic at Texas Tech.
“I certainly know of at least one recently terminated former immigration judge who has provided a sworn affidavit,” he added. Caudillo was “not at liberty” to share the affidavit he mentioned and Michigan Public was unable to independently locate it.
George Pappas, a former immigration court judge in Massachusetts who was fired by the Trump administration in 2025, said detainees were routinely released in the past.
“Obviously if the individual has a prior criminal record, they are not going to get a bond,” Pappas said. “But if a person does not have a criminal record, has been paying taxes, raising a family, and their only civil violation is entering the country let’s say without a visa, they’re a high candidate for bond.”
Most court documents Michigan Public reviewed had almost no details about why a detainee was granted bond or why that bond was set at a certain amount. Bond denials often contained some information — a few paragraphs at most. In some cases, judges cited criminal charges or encounters with law enforcement.
But in several denials, immigration judges only wrote “flight risk”.
Screenshots from bond orders attached to status reports. Collage by Adam Yahya Rayes
/
Michigan Public
In many bond denials, like the example on the left, immigration judges wrote several paragraphs explaining their reasoning. In other cases, like the examples on the right, judges only wrote two words or a single sentence.
“If you’re going to issue an order as an immigration judge, you’re obligated to explain the legal reasoning why the person is a flight risk,” said Pappas, who is critical of the Trump administration and now represents immigrants. To him, Pappas said, the lack of information in some orders shows immigration judges are “rubber stamping denials.”
The sheer volume of cases could be part of what’s behind short denial explanations, said Caudillo.
“I think the increased number of detention has certainly permitted judges to not be as thorough in their decision-making,” Caudillo said.
But, he said, the orders Michigan Public viewed are “summary orders.” It’s likely judges would be able to provide more detailed reasonings in response to an appeal.
Caudillo said it would be “foolish” for judges to issue two-word denials in bond hearings ordered by federal courts because the people in those hearings have already shown they’re willing “to go to federal court in order to obtain due process.”
A “second round” in federal court
Across the country, some sitting federal judges have also expressed doubts.
“The bond hearing has indications of predetermined outcome,” wrote Western District of Missouri Judge Douglas Harpool in an order overturning a
