WASHINGTON — As they seek to curb President Donald Trump’s aggressive approach to immigration enforcement, congressional Democrats are looking to formalize some guidelines previous administrations used.

Of the 10 policy proposals Democratic leaders offered in negotiations to reopen the Department of Homeland Security, which has been in a funding lapse since Feb. 14 in the midst of widespread uproar over the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by immigration officers in Minneapolis last month, seven have been employed in at least some form by previous administrations.

Democrats are asking the Trump administration to reinstate policies it has rejected in its controversial push to carry out mass deportations. Prior policies Democrats want to formalize include use-of-force standards, allowing unannounced visits by members of Congress to facilities that detain immigrants and obtaining judicial warrants before entering private residences.

“Many of the things the Democrats are asking for are to revert to prior policies,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior DHS official during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. “Some of them are responding to the ways this administration is carrying out its operations that previous administrations did not.”

Formalizing the policies in law, as part of a deal to pass a fiscal 2026 funding bill for the department, would make them more permanent.

“Policies and guidance … apply as the current leadership applies them,” Cardinal Brown said. “They’re not absolutes, and they can be changed much more frequently.”

But an agreement between congressional Democrats and the White House on changes to immigration enforcement appears elusive. The White House’s response to the proposals was “incomplete and insufficient,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a Feb. 9 statement. 

No recent movement on negotiations

Democrats late Monday sent over a counterproposal to Republicans and the White House, but did not make public what those changes were, according to a statement from party leaders.

While there is bipartisan support for some of the proposals, like requiring body-worn cameras, others, such as barring immigration agents from wearing face coverings and requiring judicial warrants to enter private property, have been rejected outright by the Trump administration.

A White House official said the “Trump Administration remains interested in having good faith conversations with the Democrats.” 

“President Trump has been clear – he wants the government open,” according to the White House official.

Even with the department shut down, immigration enforcement will continue, due to $170 billion in funding in the massive tax cuts and spending package Trump signed into law last year. 

Democrats’ proposals do not include consequences if DHS doesn’t comply, which raises an issue of effectiveness, said Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group that aims to provide free or low-cost legal services for immigrants.

“When Congress is negotiating policy measures, are they also putting teeth to those policy measures, and are they yanking away the funds that we know ICE and CBP will use to violate guardrails to begin with?” Altman said.

Changes demanded after Minneapolis deaths

After Renee Good was shot and killed by immigration officer Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7, lawmakers amended the Homeland Security funding bill to add guardrails, such as appropriating $20 million for body cameras and adding a requirement for DHS to report how funds from the tax cuts and spending package are being spent.

But a second death in Minnesota, that of intensive care unit nurse Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, spurred Democrats to reject funding for DHS without stronger policy changes to the enforcement tactics used by immigration officers at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. 

Only three of the 10 proposals from Schumer and Jeffries, both of New York, would be entirely new. 

They are: prohibiting ICE and other immigration enforcement agents from wearing face coverings, barring racial profiling after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the practice last year, and standardizing uniforms of DHS agents.

The heads of ICE and CBP rejected Democrats’ request to have their immigration officers forgo face coverings when asked during an oversight hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee last week. 

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, along with congressional Republicans, have argued that masks and face coverings prevent their officers from being doxed. 

Local cooperation

Other proposals, including barring of immigration enforcement of so-called sensitive locations such as religious places, child care facilities, hospitals and schools, would expand previous DHS guidance that restricted enforcement in such places.

The Democratic proposal calls for enforcement to be prohibited at those sensitive locations. Prior guidance allowed for the practice on a limited basis.

Then-acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello rescinded the policy shortly after President Donald Trump took office in January last year. There are several lawsuits brought by religious groups challenging the move by the Trump administration.

A requirement that immigration officials gain permission from local and state governments before undertaking large enforcement operations like the one in Minneapolis would build on previous policies of federal-local cooperation.

But that measure would be a long shot, Cardinal Brown said.

“I think that’s going to be a hard one,” she said. “The federal government has the authority to enforce immigration law anywhere in the country it wishes.”

She said a more realistic option would be for the federal government to inform or coordinate with local authorities for large-scale immigration operations. 

Another proposed requirement that DHS officials present identification also builds on a previous policy.

Another proposal builds on DHS policy of targeted enforcement by ending “indiscriminate arrests,” without warrants.

Under current immigration law, if an officer encounters a person believed to be in the U.S. unlawfully and can escape before a warrant is obtained, a warrantless arrest is lawful.

Democrats want to increase standards on the forms ICE uses to authorize an arrest. These administrative forms are not signed by a judge but instead by an ICE employee.

Judicial warrants

The remaining proposals would revert DHS policies to those in place under prior administrations’ guidance. Those include use-of-force standards, use of body cameras when interacting with the public, allowing members of Congress unannounced oversight visits at detention centers that hold immigrants and requiring a judicial warrant to enter private property.

An internal ICE memo, obtained by The Associated Press, showed that Lyons instructed ICE agents to enter private residences without a judicial warrant – a departure from longstanding DHS policy.

“This judicial warrant issue is so disturbing,” said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, or AILA.  

He said the question of whether a warrant is needed to enter private property was already decided under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. 

“The fact that it’s being discussed now is really frightening,” Johnson said.

Body cameras

Providing funds for DHS to acquire body cameras for immigration officers is one proposal Democrats and Republicans seem to have agreed on.

Earlier this month, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that body cameras would be provided to all immigration agents in Minneapolis, and said that as “funding is available, the body camera program will be expanded nationwide.”

During an oversight hearing on Capitol Hill, Lyons said about 3,000 ICE officers currently have body cameras with another 6,000 cameras on the way. Scott said  roughly 10,000 Border Patrol agents, about half the total force, have body cameras.

But body cameras are not a guarantee against misconduct, Altman said.

CBP officials were wearing body cameras when Pretti was shot and killed. Scott said that footage would be released after the investigation is over.

“We see officers in the field right now wearing body-worn cameras engaging in abuse and violence on the daily,” Altman said. 

Oversight visits

One of the proposals would also end a DHS policy to require members of Congress to provide seven-day notice of oversight visits at facilities that hold immigrants, despite a 2019 appropriations law that allows for unannounced visits.

Since last summer, several lawmakers have been denied oversight visits at ICE facilities prompting them to sue in federal court. 

On the day funding for DHS lapsed, Feb. 14, the Department of Justice submitted a brief, noting that because of the shutdown, unannounced oversight visits by lawmakers can be denied. 

The administration argued that during the shutdown, immigration enforcement has been funded by the tax cuts and spending bill, which does not include language allowing unannounced visits, rather than regular appropriations. 

“There is no lawful basis for the Court to enjoin Defendants’ conduct so long as the restricted funds have lapsed,” according to the document.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Maryland Tuesday barred U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from re-detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia, saying the Trump administration lacks plans to remove him from the United States.

“Respondents have done nothing to show that Abrego Garcia’s continued detention in ICE custody is consistent with due process,” District of Maryland Judge Paula Xinis wrote in her order. 

Tuesday’s order solidifies a temporary decision from Xinis last year that blocked immigration officials from re-detaining him. 

Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran immigrant and longtime Maryland resident whose wrongful deportation to a brutal megaprison last year cast a national spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown. 

His case has remained a focal point for the Trump administration, which brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face criminal charges lodged against him stemming from a traffic stop in Tennessee. 

Those charges were made while Abrego Garcia remained imprisoned in El Salvador, and after the Supreme Court found his deportation unlawful and said the Trump administration should facilitate his return. 

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to those charges of human smuggling and that case continues.

Since Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S., the Trump administration has tried to deport him to a third country, because he has deportation protections from his home country of El Salvador. An immigration judge in 2019 found he would likely face violence if returned there. 

Costa Rica has offered to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee and he has agreed to be removed there, but the Trump administration has tried to deport him to three African countries: Liberia, Eswatini and Uganda.

“Indeed, since Abrego Garcia secured his release from criminal custody in August 2025, Respondents have made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success,” Xinis wrote. 

Xinis added that because the Trump administration has not secured any travel documents for a third country of removal for Abrego Garcia, his detention would be unlawful. The Supreme Court deemed that immigrants cannot be held longer than six months in detention if the federal government is not actively making efforts to remove them. 

“From this, the Court easily concludes that there is no ‘good reason to believe’ removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future,” she wrote.

Abrego Garcia remains in Maryland with his wife, a U.S. citizen, and their three children. 

WASHINGTON — The second partial government shutdown in 2026 began at 12:01 a.m. Saturday, after lawmakers left the nation’s capital without reaching a deal on changes to immigration enforcement tactics at the Department of Homeland Security. 

The department’s shutdown is also likely to go on for some time. With Congress out next week for the Presidents Day recess, lawmakers are not expected back on Capitol Hill for votes until Feb. 23. 

A procedural vote to approve funding for the Homeland Security bill for fiscal year 2026 failed Thursday to gain support from Senate Democrats because constraints to immigration enforcement were not included, such as an end to agents wearing face coverings. 

Even with the president’s border czar Tom Homan announcing Thursday  the withdrawal of the thousands of federal immigration officers from Minneapolis, Democrats argued it’s not enough. 

“Without legislation, what Tom Homan says today could be reversed tomorrow on a whim from (President) Donald Trump,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

Asked by the press pool Friday about cutting a deal on the shutdown,  Trump said, “We’ll see what happens. We always have to protect our law enforcement.”

After the Senate vote failed 52-47, members of Congress emptied out of Washington for the recess. Some were off to Munich, Germany for a major security conference. 

ICE still has cash at hand

While the agency Trump tasked with carrying out his mass deportation campaign of immigrants will shut down, enforcement will continue because Congress allocated a separate stream of money, about $75 billion for U.S. Immigration and Enforcement Services. 

During last fall’s government shutdown, which lasted a record-breaking 43 days, immigration enforcement continued.

The other agencies within DHS that will be shut down but continue to operate because they include essential workers include the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, among others.

In general, any employees who focus on national security issues or the protection of life and property would continue to work through a shutdown, while federal workers who don’t are supposed to be furloughed. 

Neither category of employees will receive their paychecks during the funding lapse, though federal law requires they receive back pay once Congress approves some sort of spending bill. 

Democratic mayors call for GOP to accept proposals

Democrats have pushed for policy changes after federal immigration officers killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis, where a deportation drive is set to wind down after the city faced more than two months of aggressive immigration enforcment. 

Renee Good was shot and killed by an immigration officer on Jan. 7, which prompted a bipartisan agreement to enact some guardrails, such as $20 million in funding for immigration agents to wear body cameras. 

But a second killing by federal immigration officers, that of Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, prompted the Senate to decouple the Homeland Security measure from a package of spending bills, as Democrats floated proposals meant to rein in enforcement tactics, and prompted a four-day partial shutdown. A two-week funding patch was set for negotiations and it expires at midnight Friday.

Democratic mayors hailing from the major cities of Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New Orleans and Portland, Oregon, Friday issued a letter that called on the top Republicans in Congress, Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota and House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, to accept the proposals before DHS entered a shutdown. 

“When federal agents operate in our streets without identification, without warrants, and without accountability, that trust is shattered,” they wrote. “All of us agree that for so long as the agency exists, new funding for the Department of Homeland Security must be conditioned on the comprehensive 10-point framework released last week.”

Those policy suggestions include requiring immigration officers to not wear masks and identify themselves, which has drawn strong opposition from Republicans and the leaders of ICE and Customs and Border Protection who argue the face coverings prevent their agents from being doxxed. 

Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., sent the proposals over to the White House, but said the Trump administration’s response was “incomplete and insufficient in terms of addressing the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct.” 

According to the contingency plan for DHS, the agency expects about 20,000 employees out of 271,000 to be furloughed in the event of a government shutdown.

WASHINGTON — The top leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee showed a play-by-play video leading up to the fatal shooting in Minneapolis of Alex Pretti by Customs and Border Protection officers, as they grilled the heads of two federal immigration agencies about the incident during an oversight hearing Thursday.

Chairman Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said there needs to be accountability following the deaths of Pretti, an intensive care unit nurse and Renee Good, a mother of three and poet, in January at the hands of immigration agents.

“The thousands of people in the streets in Minneapolis and in Minnesota and the millions of viewers who witnessed the recent deaths, it’s clearly evident that the public trust has been lost,” Paul said. “To restore trust in (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and Border Patrol, they must admit their mistakes, be honest and forthright with their rules of engagement and pledge to reform.”

Paul and Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the panel, questioned ICE acting Director Todd Lyons and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott about immigration officers’ use of force tactics and whether the agents followed de-escalation procedures. 

“You have to look at what your rules are for drawing weapons, because it appears to me they’re not using the same standards as the police,” Paul said of immigration agents.

It was the second congressional oversight hearing for Scott and Lyons this week. Democrats and Republicans are at a stalemate over funding for the agency for fiscal year 2026, with Democrats demanding changes in immigration enforcement tactics after the deadly encounters in Minneapolis.

The shutdown will not stop President Donald Trump’s mass deportation push, however. Even if an agreement to fund DHS is not reached by Friday and the agency is closed, ICE still has $75 billion in funding from the tax and spending package from last year.

Minutes into Thursday’s hearing, border czar Tom Homan announced that immigration enforcement operations would end in Minneapolis after two months. 

Pretti pepper sprayed, held down

Paul and Peters showed the leaders of CBP and ICE a New York Times video analysis leading up to the shooting of Pretti, who was pepper sprayed and tackled to the ground by multiple immigration officers. He was held down and at least 10 shots can be heard on video.

Lyons and Scott declined to comment on the clips shown, saying there are multiple ongoing investigations. Scott said the FBI, CBP and ICE were conducting their own investigations.

Paul expressed his frustration with that answer and pointed to the lead-up to Pretti’s encounters with federal officers. The video shows a woman yelling at a federal immigration officer. She is shoved to the ground and Pretti goes to help her up.

“No one in America believes shoving that woman’s head, in the face, in the snow, was de-escalation,” Paul said. 

Paul asked if an appropriate response to someone yelling is to shove them to the ground. 

Scott said it was not, but that he couldn’t comment on the specific video. 

Paul said that in the video it’s clear that Pretti is using his hand to protect his face from pepper spray.

“He is retreating at every moment,” Paul said. “He’s trying to get away, and he’s being sprayed in the face. I don’t think that’s de-escalatory. That’s an escalatory thing.”

Paul said an investigation needs to be done quickly. 

Scott said there is body camera footage from the officers involved in Pretti’s shooting that will be released to the public.

“I don’t think this should take months and months and years and years,” Paul said. “There needs to be a conclusion.”

Peters pointed to how immigration officers are seen beating Pretti with a pepper spray canister. He asked Scott if that was an appropriate response. 

“What I’m seeing is a subject that’s also not complying, he’s not following any guidance. He’s fighting back nonstop,” Scott said, adding that he couldn’t answer Peters’ question because the investigation was ongoing.

Peters then questioned Scott and Lyons on why DHS Secretary Kristi Noem quickly labeled Good and Pretti as “domestic terrorists.” He asked the men if they had given her any briefing or additional information for her to have drawn that conclusion.

Both said they had not. 

Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin also told Lyons that she was concerned about statements made by Trump about sending immigration agents to polling locations ahead of the midterm elections. 

“There’s no reason for us to deploy to a polling facility,” he said. 

Minnesota withdrawal

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford informed the first panel, which brought Minnesota leaders to the nation’s capital, of Homan’s announcement that the surge would be ending in Minneapolis.

The first panel included GOP Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota; Minnesota House Republican Floor Leader Harry Niska; Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a Democrat; and the commissioner of the Department of Corrections for the state of Minnesota, Paul Schnell.  

Lankford said there needs to be better coordination between local and federal law enforcement, such as 287(g) agreements. In those partnerships, which are voluntary, local law enforcement will notify ICE if they arrest someone who is in the country unlawfully and hold that person until federal immigration officers can arrive.

“So the position that my office has taken is that, if you are a sheriff who wants to pursue 287(g), you must have the support of your county board,” Ellison said, adding that seven counties have such agreements.  

One Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, blamed the deaths of Pretti and Good not on the immigration agents who killed them. He said they occurred because Ellison urged Minnesotans to exercise their First Amendment rights.

“Two people are dead because you encouraged them to put themselves into harm’s way,” Johnson said to Ellison. “And now you are exploiting those two martyrs. You ought to feel damn guilty about it.”

In response, Ellison said, “It was a nice theatrical performance but it was all lies.”

‘Occupied by the federal government’

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim noted that the number of ICE agents, about 3,000, initially sent to Minneapolis, significantly dwarfed the local police, which is roughly under 600. He asked Ellison how it felt in Minneapolis to have that many federal immigration agents in the city. 

“It felt like we were being occupied by the federal government,” Ellison said. 

During the second panel, Kim asked Lyons if ICE is planning to conduct a similar operation in other cities.   

Lyons said the agency would, and said he learned lessons from the deportation drive in Minneapolis. 

“We look at lessons learned,” Lyons said. “The problem, I believe, is the … agitators and the coordination on the protest side. People can go out there and protest, but why are we going to encourage individuals to go out there and impede and put themselves in harm’s way? I think that’s the lesson learned from this.”

Gov. Tim Walz on Tuesday said that he expects the federal immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota to wind down soon.

During a press conference intended to highlight the adverse impacts of President Donald Trump’s federal immigration enforcement on small businesses and restaurants, Walz said federal officials have “assured us that I think we are moving towards that.”

“It would be my hope that Mr. Homan goes out before Friday and announces that this thing is done,” Walz said in an empty Market at Malcolm Yards in Minneapolis.

Walz said that since Trump’s border czar Tom Homan took over operations in Minnesota from Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino two weeks ago, his administration has spoken with Homan daily. Walz said he also spoke to Trump’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles this morning.

Over the past two months, immigration agents have shot three people, killing two; racially profiled people, asking them to produce proof of legal residency; detained legal immigrants and shipped them across state lines, including young children; caused numerous car crashes; deployed chemical irritants on public school property; smashed the car windows of observers and arrested them before releasing them without charges; and threatened journalists who were filming them from a distance in a public space, among other high-profile incidents.

Walz cautioned that although he expects the operation to wind down soon, Trump is unpredictable and will likely declare the immigration operation successful before he orders federal agents out of Minnesota.

“It is very important for the president of the United States to believe he wins,” Walz said. “They’ve got to believe they accomplished what they were going to accomplish. It’s my understanding they think they did that.”

The governor said that when the operation is over, the state will shift to recovery mode. Walz noted that the fallout of “Operation Metro Surge” will affect Minnesota’s revenue streams and hospitality industry long after federal agents leave, likening the impact to the COVID-19 pandemic.

WASHINGTON — The head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined during a U.S. House hearing Tuesday to apologize to the families of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, the victims of fatal shootings by immigration officers in Minneapolis last month.

Top Trump administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, had said both Minneapolis residents engaged in “domestic terrorism.” Good was a poet and mother of three and Pretti was an intensive care unit nurse. 

ICE acting Director Todd Lyons demurred when asked by California Democrat Eric Swalwell if he would apologize for that characterization. 

“I’m not going to speak to any ongoing investigation,” Lyons said.

Lawmakers on the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee grilled Lyons, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow during Tuesday’s hearing, following the fatal shootings of Good on Jan. 7 and Pretti on Jan. 24. The deportation campaign in Minneapolis began more than two months ago.

Following the shootings, Democrats have pushed for policy changes to the appropriations bill that funds the agency for fiscal year 2026, scrambling a bipartisan agreement on the measure. 

If lawmakers don’t reach a deal by Friday, funding for much of DHS will run out. Funding for immigration enforcement will remain due to provisions in Republicans’ tax cuts and spending law last year.

Scott called the thousands of protestors and legal observers in Minnesota “paid agitators.” There is no evidence of that. 

Noem, who Democrats are pushing to impeach, was not at the hearing. 

The chair of the committee, Rep. Andrew Garbarino of New York, acknowledged that the country was at an “inflection point” and called the deaths of Good and Pretti “unacceptable and preventable.”

But he otherwise largely defended federal immigration officials and the Trump administration’s enforcement tactics. 

The top Democrat on the committee, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said the Trump administration was weaponizing DHS against Americans. 

Body cameras, masks and roving patrols

Democrats questioned Scott and Lyons on a handful of policy proposals that Democrats are pushing for in the DHS appropriations bill.

The Democrats’ proposals include mandating body cameras for immigration agents and requiring those officers to identify themselves and not wear masks.

Thompson asked Lyons how many body cameras ICE officers have. Noem earlier this month announced DHS would be sending body cameras to all ICE officers across the country. 

Lyons said about 3,000 ICE officers currently have body cameras with another 6,000 cameras on the way.

Scott said that about 10,000 Border Patrol agents have body cameras out of 20,000 agents. 

Democratic Rep. Tim Kennedy of New York asked Lyons if he would commit to instructing ICE agents to stop wearing face coverings and masks in enforcement actions. 

“No,” Lyons said. 

Kennedy then asked Lyons if he believed Noem should resign, given the deadly shootings of Good and Pretti. 

“I’m not going to comment on that,” Lyons said. 

GOP Rep. Michael McCaul, a former chair of the committee who is retiring next year, said some of the roving patrols should be kept at the southern border, rather than in residential areas. 

“I’ve called for de-escalation after the two deaths, the two shootings that took place,” McCaul said. “I believe that these roving patrols should be done at the border rather than in the major cities of the United States.”

Democrats are also calling for an end to those roving patrols in enforcement in the interior of the U.S.  

McCaul added that federal immigration agents “are not trained to effectuate crowd control.”

“They are trained to move in surgically, go in and remove these dangerous, violent criminals from the United States of America,” he said.

Judgment day, Klan invoked 

The hearing had a few heated exchanges between Democrats and the administration officials.

New Jersey Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver, who is facing federal charges after a clash with immigration officers at a detention facility in Newark where she tried to conduct an unannounced oversight visit, asked Lyons if he considered himself a religious person. 

Lyons said he did and McIver asked him how he thought “judgment day would work for you with so much blood on your hands.”

“I’m not going to entertain the question,” Lyons said.

She asked Lyons if he thought he was “going to hell.”

Garbarino quickly shut down her line of questioning. 

Democratic Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois criticized the officials before her, and called for ICE to be abolished.

“I have as much respect for you as I do for the last white men who put on masks to terrorize communities of color. I have no respect for the inheritors of the Klanhood and the slave patrol,” she said. “Those activities were criminal and so are yours.”

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem paints a section of the border barrier in New Mexico in August to prevent rust and make it hotter to prevent climbing. Declines in immigration contributed to a low population gain in the United States last year. (Photo by Danielle Prokop/Source NM)

A drop in immigration amid President Donald Trump’s enforcement crackdown led to historically slow population growth in the United States last year.

Activity at the southern border is at a historic low. The population change reflects the last months of the Biden administration, when immigration controls began to tighten, and the first months of the Trump administration’s massive anti-immigration and deportation agenda.

Five states lost population, according to the new Census Bureau estimates released Jan. 27 covering changes between mid-2024 and mid-2025. The changes suggest Texas and Florida could gain congressional seats at the expense of California, Illinois and New York.

States that did gain population were concentrated in the South, where numbers appear to give Republican states in the region a political edge halfway through the decade. 

An analysis by Jonathan Cervas at Carnegie Mellon University predicted four more seats in Congress after the 2030 census for Texas and Florida, with losses of four seats in California and two each in New York and Illinois. Cervas is an assistant teaching professor who researches representation and redistricting. 

“We are still a long way off from 2030, so there is a lot of uncertainty in these projections,” Cervas said, adding that California’s loss in the next decade could be only two or three seats.

Another expert, redistricting consultant Kimball Brace of Virginia, said he was suspicious of the sudden drop in California’s population. Earlier projections had the state losing only one seat after 2030, he said. 

“This acceleration in California’s population loss is not something that was in the projections at all,” Brace said. “I’ve got to be a little bit skeptical in terms of the numbers. It shows a significant difference in what we’ve seen in the early part of the decade.”

Brace was still working on his own analysis. William Frey, a demographer at The Brookings Institution, said net immigration was about 1.3 million nationally for the year, down by more than half from the year before.

“As a result most states showed slower growth or greater declines,” Frey said. California had about 200,000 fewer immigrants than the previous year, similar to Texas and New York, though those two states eked out populations gains anyway because of people moving in and births 

Texas and North Carolina gained the most people between mid-2024 and mid-2025, while California and Hawaii lost the most. 

Nationally, the population increased only about 1.7 million, or half a percentage point, to about 341.8 million. It was the lowest increase of the decade and the smallest gain since the pandemic sharply cut growth in 2020 and 2021. Growth was just 1.4 million between mid-2019 and mid-2020, and only about 500,000 between mid-2020 and mid-2021. Before that, national population growth was below 2 million only twice since 1975. 

Among the states, Texas gained about 391,000 in population, up 1.2%, followed in the top 5 by Florida (197,000, or .8%, North Carolina (146,000, or 1.3%), Georgia (99,000, or .9%) and South Carolina (80,000, or 1.5%).

California went from one of the largest increases the previous year to the greatest population loss, about 9,500, less than .1%,  followed by Hawaii (down 2,000, or .1%), Vermont (down 1,900 or 0.3%), New Mexico (down  1,300, or 0.1%) and West Virginia (down 1,300 or .1%). 

Vermont had the largest percentage decrease and South Carolina had the largest increase. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

An Avelo Airlines jet that has been painted all white and is used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Air Operations at Mesa Gateway Airport for deportation and detainee transfers. Photo by Jerod MacDonald-Evoy/Arizona Mirror

Two gay Iranian men who came to the United States seeking asylum and who were set to be deported on Sunday to Iran, where homosexuality has been punished by death, had their deportations delayed. 

While the two men were not deported on Sunday, an unknown number of other Iranians were, as immigration watchdogs and journalists noted that a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement chartered aircraft that departed from Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport made its way to the country.  

Rebekah Wolf, an attorney for the American Immigration Council, which is representing the two men, confirmed to the Arizona Mirror that one of the men was able to obtain a temporary stay of removal from late Friday from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Wolf declined to publicly identify her clients out of fear for their safety, but the Mirror has reviewed court documents and detention records that confirm key details of their story. 

The other man, who is medically fragile, had his deportation delayed because he is under a medical quarantine due to a measles outbreak at the ICE Florence Detention Facility he is currently detained at, Wolf said. ICE, the Arizona Department of Health Services and the Pinal County Health Department all refused to comment on the outbreak. 

Wolf’s clients, who have no criminal convictions and who both came to the United States in 2025 on asylum claims, were arrested by the Iranian “morality police” for being gay years ago. That spurred them to flee the country. 

Homosexuality is a crime in Iran and the country has executed men for it as recently as 2022. 

“Our position has been that, if we can get a court, any court, any judge to fully consider all of the evidence in the case, that a grant of asylum is obvious,” Wolf said. “These are very straightforward cases.”

Wolf’s clients were denied asylum in spring 2025 and have been working on appealing that denial, but were not granted stays of removal. She said that when her clients initially went before the court, they did not have legal representation, leading to the court and judge not seeing all the evidence for their case. 

“The reason that we are in this position is because these clients, while they have very straightforward asylum claims, did not have representation,” Wolf said.

While the temporary stay will help her one client, it does not halt deportation for the entirety of the appeal process. 

Between 3,000 and 4,500 Iranians were recently killed when their government brutally cracked down on protesters. The unrest led to the Federal Aviation Administration issuing a no-fly zone over the region as tensions between Iran and the United States escalated. 

ICE did not respond to a request for comment about what agreement it had made to allow its deportation aircraft to fly into Iran and what agreement it may have come to with the country allowing it to conduct the deportation. 

Wolf also said that she has been in communication with members of Congress who have taken interest in the case, which has led to some interesting revelations. 

“Up until Sunday morning, the last we had heard was that there was not going to be a flight on Sunday,” Wolf said, of information she and members of Congress had been told. “The lack of communication or transparency between DHS and Congress is pretty telling about the sort of state of things.” 

U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari, a Phoenix Democrat, has been outspoken about the deportations to Iran, asking the ICE and DHS to clarify what arrangements the United States has made to conduct the deportations back to Iran. 

The Mesa Gateway Airport that the two men are scheduled to fly out of plays a crucial role in ICE’s ramping up of aerial deportation efforts. It hosts the agency’s headquarters for its “ICE Air” operations, which uses subcontractors and subleases to disguise deportation aircraft.

The airport has also been part of the administration’s efforts to send immigrants to African nations like Ghana, often when those aboard are not even from the continent. 

The airport is also home to a lesser-known detention facility. 

The Arizona Removal Operations Coordination Center, or AROCC for short, is a 25,000-square-foot facility at the airport. It opened in 2010 to little fanfare and can house up to 157 detainees and 79 employees from ICE, according to an ICE press release from 2010.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks to a crowd of people who held a prayer vigil and rally on his behalf outside the ICE building in Baltimore on Aug. 25, 2025. Lydia Walther Rodriguez with CASA interprets for him. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

WASHINGTON — The first year of President Donald Trump’s return to the White House was defined by clashes with the judiciary branch, as the president and his administration pushed forward with an aggressive immigration agenda.

In the past year, the Trump administration has aimed to drastically change immigration policy in the United States, including by stripping millions of immigrants of their legal status and attempting to redefine the constitutional right of birthright citizenship.  

The moves have often run directly against the judiciary branch. 

Federal judges briefly stalled the Trump administration’s plans to deploy the National Guard in Portland, Oregon, for immigration enforcement. They also blocked the invocation of an archaic wartime law to expel immigrants from the country — a move that raised concerns, all the way up to the Supreme Court, about skirting the due process rights of immigrants.

In response, the president for the last year frequently battled with federal judges, such as in June, when the Justice Department sued all judges in federal court in Maryland over a two-day pause in deportations to ensure due process rights for immigrants.

Trump also fixated on certain judges that put his policies on hold, such as the District of Columbia’s Chief Judge James Emanuel Boasberg.

Boasberg blocked the Trump administration from deporting certain immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and ordered the return of deportation flights that, despite his restraining order, still landed at a brutal prison in El Salvador. 

Trump’s singling out of Boasberg in late March, and calling for his impeachment, prompted a rare rebuke from conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

But the Supreme Court has often handed wins to the Trump administration on numerous emergency appeals. The high court allowed for deportations of immigrants to countries they have no ties to, referred to as third-country removals, and allowed the use of race in immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. 

The president has found himself at odds with a range of groups in response to his harsh immigration policy.

A group of Quakers sued the Department of Homeland Security after officials removed a so-called sensitive locations policy that limited immigration enforcement in places of worship. 

The Trump administration also faced backlash in its attempt to quickly deport Guatemalan children in the middle of the night, where a Trump nominated judge said the Department of Justice’s arguments for the move “crumbled like a house of cards.”

Out of the dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration, here are the five most significant court cases related to the president’s immigration policies:

Alien Enemies Act

Last March, two deportation planes carrying immigrants removed under an 18th-century wartime law were ordered to return to the U.S. by Boasberg, chief judge for the District Court for the District of Columbia. 

But the planes still landed in El Salvador, and 137 Venezuelan men were sent to a brutal prison known as CECOT after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The wartime law would apply to any Venezuelan national 14 and older who was suspected of being a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. 

Boasberg then spent months probing whether Trump officials defied his order to turn the planes around. Last month, he concluded that the deportations were illegal and carried out in defiance of his order.

The 137 Venezuelan men were eventually released from CECOT last summer through a prisoner exchange. Boasberg determined that even though the men are no longer imprisoned, they still need to be afforded their due process rights and he ordered the Trump administration to propose a way to afford those due process rights. 

In the latest major development, last month he directed the administration to create a plan on how to do that, such as providing some form of video interview before an immigration judge. 

The Trump administration has argued because of the U.S. military operations to extract Venezuela’s president from the county, the situation is fluid, and they cannot provide a timeline for complying with Boasberg’s order from last month. 

The Justice Department’s most recent filing, from Jan. 12, objects to the court’s order to facilitate remote due process hearings, and “given the current political instability in Venezuela, there is a serious risk of intentional interference with remote proceedings.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also submitted a Jan. 12 declaration to the court, saying that “introducing the matter of the disposition of the 137 class members into these discussions at this time would risk material damage to U.S. foreign policy interests in Venezuela.” 

He added that the U.S. does not know where the 137 Venezuelan men are. 

“Given the passage of time, the U.S. government does not know—nor does it have any way of knowing—the whereabouts of class members, including whether anyone has departed Venezuela or whether the regime subsequently took anyone back into custody,” Rubio said. 

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

The wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant and longtime Maryland man, cast a national spotlight on the president’s aggressive immigration crackdown. 

Abrego Garcia’s case has highlighted the Trump administration’s appetite for mass deportations. The case started last March in the District Court of the District of Maryland, after Trump officials mistakenly removed Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, despite removal protections placed by an immigration judge in 2019 because it was likely Abrego Garcia would face violence if returned to his home country. 

But in March, Abrego Garcia was placed on a plane, along with Venezuelans removed under the Alien Enemies Act, to the brutal El Salvador mega-prison known as CECOT.

Federal Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return, but the Trump administration took the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that it could not force another government to comply with the U.S.

The Supreme Court sided with Abrego Garcia, but stopped short of ordering his return.   

Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. several months later to face a criminal indictment in Tennessee over allegations of human smuggling. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges, and another federal judge has found cause that the Justice Department brought the indictment in a vindictive move against Abrego Garcia.

Since his return, Abrego Garcia has detailed psychological and physical torture he experienced at CECOT. The Trump administration has also tried to remove him to a country to which he has no ties because of the 2019 removal protections.

Trump officials re-detained Abrego Garcia and have tried to remove him to the African nations of Eswatini, Ghana, Uganda and Liberia, despite Costa Rica’s willingness to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee and his willingness to go. 

For that reason, Xinis ordered Abrego Garcia’s release from an ICE facility in Pennsylvania and barred the Trump administration from re-detaining him. 

She is currently overseeing Abrego Garcia’s challenge to his detention on the grounds that the Trump administration is using his imprisonment as punishment rather than for the purpose of removal. 

A Jan. 14 hearing was the most recent development in Abrego Garcia’s case. 

There, Xinis briefly conferred with his lawyers and Department of Justice attorneys regarding the timing of a final order of removal for Abrego Garcia was issued — the question was whether it was in 2019 or January 2025. 

The timing of the order of removal could determine whether the Trump administration can re-detain Abrego Garcia for removal. Xinis in December ordered Abrego Garcia’s release, because she determined the Trump administration was unlawfully detaining him and said ICE failed repeatedly to show a final order of removal existed.

Xinis said she plans to make a final decision in Abrego Garcia’s case by Feb. 12.

Birthright Citizenship

One of Trump’s first executive orders he signed on Inauguration Day was ending the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. 

Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status. There is a small carve-out for the children born of diplomats. 

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than 250,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship and it would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to a recent study by the think tank the Migration Policy Institute.

In response to Trump’s executive order, multiple lawsuits were filed and lower courts across the country have granted preliminary injunctions against the order. 

One of the challenges to birthright citizenship, brought by Democratic attorneys general, made its way to the Supreme Court, but the Trump administration asked the justices to weigh in on the issue of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts, rather than the merits of birthright citizenship. 

The justices decided on an order that limited nationwide injunctions, such as class action suits. 

The merits of birthright citizenship are now before the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear oral arguments in February. 

That birthright citizenship case is Barbara v. Trump, which stems from a case in New Hampshire. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction to bar the executive order from taking effect against a class of babies born on or after Feb. 20, 2025. Those children would have been denied citizenship under the president’s executive order.  

Lawmakers’ Access to ICE Facilities 

As the Trump administration continues with aggressive immigration enforcement and detention, one of the few tools Democrats have, as the minority party, is oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. 

More than 60,000 immigrants are detained across various ICE facilities in the country, and Democrats argue they need access to conduct oversight at the facilities. Under a 2019 appropriations law, any lawmaker can carry out an unannounced visit at a federal facility that holds immigrants. 

But after several Democrats were denied access to ICE facilities in July, due to a policy instituted by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that required seven days notice, a dozen House Democrats sued. 

Last month, a federal judge granted the lawmakers’ request to stay the new policy by Noem. But after Minnesota lawmakers said they were denied an oversight visit to an ICE facility following a deadly shooting by an immigration officer in Minneapolis, Democrats were back in court Jan. 14.

Noem required a seven-day notice, nearly identical to the policy that initially prompted the suit from Democrats last year. 

The federal judge handling the case, Jia Cobb, is probing whether the Trump administration has violated her court order.

Democrats who sued include: Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Expanded Use of Expedited Removal 

A pillar of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign is the expanded use of expedited removal. The Trump policy allows the removal of immigrants through the interior of the country without an appearance before an immigration judge.

In March, immigration advocacy groups sued the Trump administration over the policy, arguing it stripped due process rights of immigrants. 

In August, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a stay in the policy, temporarily blocking the Trump administration from using it. The Department of Justice appealed, and in September a panel of appellate judges denied the Trump administration’s request to lift the lower courts’ stay. 

Most recently, in December, the Trump administration defended the merits of its fast-track deportation policy before a panel of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Department of Justice argued that immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years without legal authorization are not guaranteed due process.

A section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall near El Paso, Texas, on June 6, 2024. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader John Thune, joined at the U.S.-Mexico border Friday by a handful of other Republican senators, highlighted the president’s signature tax cuts and spending package passed last year that provided billions for immigration enforcement.

The press conference in McAllen, Texas, came after a federal immigration officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, and two people were shot by Border Patrol agents late Thursday in Portland, Oregon.

Thune, a South Dakota Republican, touted how the tax cuts and spending package signed into law last summer also provided “for additional reinforcements,” such as the hiring of more Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. 

On Jan. 3, ICE announced it hired 12,000 new officers, more than doubling its force from 10,000 agents to 22,000. Thousands more are set to be hired.

The GOP-passed bill also included $4.1 billion for Customs and Border Protection to hire 5,000 customs officers and 3,000 Border Patrol agents over the next four years.

Thune said because migration at the southern border has slowed, the time has come for President Donald Trump to shift his focus to immigration reform. CBP data from November, the most recent available, shows total apprehensions at the southwest border slowed to 7,350 that month.

“I think President Trump is probably the president best equipped to lead the effort to reform immigration law in his country in a way that it creates, again, those better paying jobs, opportunities for people who come to the country legally,” Thune said. “We are a nation of immigrants, but we’re also a nation of laws, and we have to make sure we’re enforcing our laws, and that’s where it starts.”

The Trump administration has continued with its aggressive mass deportation efforts throughout the interior of the country and has moved to revoke the legal status of more than 1.5 million immigrants since taking office last January. 

Thune added that the GOP bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, also provided billions for border security.

“As a result of the passage of the One Big, Beautiful bill … we got more resources down here, not only for physical infrastructure, for the wall, but for also that virtual infrastructure, for technology and counter drone technology, all those sorts of things that make it possible for the Border Patrol to do their job,” he said.

Thune was joined by Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming and Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Ashley Moody of Florida, Jon Husted of Ohio, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska.

Rounds said that under the Trump administration the southern border has undergone “a remarkable transformation.” 

“There is no such thing as a country that can be a superpower, or, for that matter, be free if they can’t defend their own borders,” Rounds said. 

Cornyn also highlighted how the bill will reimburse, up to $13.5 billion, those border states who have spent money on immigration enforcement. He said of that money, Texas will get $11 billion. 

There were 105 immigration arrests in October at a horse racetrack in Wilder, Idaho. Idaho saw one of the country’s largest increases in immigration arrests this year through mid-October compared with the same period in the Biden administration. (Photo courtesy of ACLU of Idaho)

Immigration arrests under the Trump administration continued to increase through mid-October, reaching rates of more than 30,000 a month. But, rather than the convicted criminals the administration has said it’s focused on, an ever-larger share of those arrests were for solely immigration violations.

In 45 states, immigration arrests more than doubled compared with the same period last year, during the Biden administration. The largest increases: There were 1,190 arrests in the District of Columbia compared with just seven last year under the Biden administration. Arrests were also more than five times higher in New Mexico, Idaho, Oregon and Virginia.

“The result stands in contrast to the administration’s objective of arresting the ‘worst of the worst,’” said Ariel Ruiz Soto, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. Heightened enforcement is likely increasing “collateral” arrests of people found during searches for convicted criminals, he said.

Comparisons between the Trump and Biden administrations were calculated by Stateline in an analysis of data released by the Deportation Data Project, a research initiative by the universities of California at Berkeley and Los Angeles. About 93% of arrests could be identified by state.

While more people were arrested this year, a lower percentage are convicted criminals.

The share of arrested immigrants who had been convicted of violent crimes has dropped from 9% in January to less than 5% in October. The share under Biden was consistently between 10% and 11% during the same period in 2024.

The same trend applies to people arrested solely on immigration violations: Immigration violations alone were behind 20% in April, then rose to 44% of arrests in October, according to Stateline’s analysis.

In some states and the District of Columbia, a majority of arrests were for immigration violations alone: the District of Columbia (80%), New York (61%), Virginia (57%), Illinois (53%), West Virginia (51%) and Maryland (50%).

States with high immigrant populations also saw the most arrests this year. The largest numeric increases were in Texas (up 29,403, triple last year’s figure), Florida (up 14,693, a fourfold increase) and California (up 13,345, a fourfold increase).

The two states with the largest arrest rate increases have responded very differently to President Donald Trump’s deportation mission.

“We’re going to resist like all of the Democratic states,” New Mexico Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said in an interview with The Santa Fe New Mexican after last year’s election, referring to mass deportation plans. She proposed legislation to ban U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities in the state. The legislation failed this year, but Lujan Grisham urged the state legislature to reconsider next year. The state has three privately run ICE detention centers with the capacity for 2,000 people.

Idaho’s Republican governor, Brad Little, is helping ICE under a 287(g) agreement by transporting what his office calls “highly dangerous illegal alien criminals” from county jails to federal custody. The 53 men pictured on the governor’s website have charges ranging from drug possession to sexual assault.

In a news release, the office says the program is intended to take people “after the completion of their sentences,” though an October review by the Idaho Capital Sun found some were transported despite dismissed or still-pending charges.

Nationally, arrests have increased this year from around 17,000 in February, the first full month of President Donald Trump’s current term, to more than 30,000 in September and October. The share of convicted criminals has dropped from 46% to 30%, though the number of convicted criminals arrested still has been higher each month than under President Joe Biden.

Some of the policies that have fed increased arrest numbers face new court battles. This month, a federal judge blocked the administration from making immigration arrests in the District of Columbia without warrants or probable cause.

In August, a federal court blocked the administration’s expansion of expedited removal, which itself allows fast deportations without judicial review. The administration has appealed, arguing that immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years without legal authorization are not guaranteed due process.

Such fast deportations could be used on 2.5 million people, according to a Migration Policy Institute estimate published in September, including 1 million people released at the border with Mexico with court dates and 1.5 million people with temporary protections such as humanitarian parole.

This fall, the share of arrested immigrants with criminal convictions continued to decrease just before and during the federal government shutdown, with only 3% of those arrested and detained having convictions between Sept. 21 and Nov. 16, according to national information analyzed by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data research organization at Syracuse University.

“While ICE is detaining more and more individuals, targeting has shifted sharply to individuals without any criminal convictions,” the TRAC report noted.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify a reference to October detention statistics analyzed by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks before dozens of supporters Friday outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Baltimore. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a free man, at least temporarily.

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant and Maryland resident, appeared early Friday for a check-in at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in Baltimore, less than day after a federal district judge ordered him released from ICE detention in Pennsylvania.

At his last ICE check-in, in August, Abrego Garcia walked in but didn’t walk out: Authorities detained him and held him until Thursday. But Friday, Abrego Garcia walked out of the building to cheers and chants, led by members of the immigrant rights group CASA to a black car that took him to rejoin his family in Prince George’s County.

Before Abrego-Garcia walked inside the building Friday, he thanked his supporters who rallied there, talked about spending the holidays with his family and offered advice for others suffering similar legal battles against the Trump administration.

“I stand before you as a free man, and I want you to remember me this way with my head held up high,” Abrego Garica said in Spanish, through a CASA translator.

“I stand here today with my head held up high, and I will continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” Abrego Garcia said. “Regardless of this administration, I believe this is a country of laws, and I believe that this injustice will come to its end. Keep fighting. Do not give up. I wish all of you love and justice. Keep going.”

One of his attorneys, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, told reporters and a few dozen protesters outside the field office that the federal judge who ordered Abrego Garcia freed Thursday said Friday that he could not be detained by ICE at his latest check-in.

Based on a temporary restraining order filed by his attorneys, Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge will schedule a hearing at U.S. District Court in Greenbelt that Abrego Garcia will be able to attend.

“The legal fight is far from over,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “I wish I could say that with this, the government is going to leave well enough alone. This man has suffered enough.”

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called the judge’s decision to let Abrego Garcia free “naked judicial activism.”

“This order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” McLaughlin said in an email Friday morning that repeated her statement from the day before.

Abrego Garcia’s return to the Baltimore ICE office came one day after U.S. District Court of Maryland Judge Paul Xinis ordered the Trump administration to release him from the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania, where he had been held since September. He was released Thursday evening and spent the night at his home in Beltsville.

Since he was first detained by immigration officials in March and wrongly deported to his home county of El Salvador, Abrego Garcia’s case has shone a spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown.

Abrego Garcia was originally deported to a brutal prison in El Salvador, despite a previous court ruling that prohibited his transfer there because of fear of violence by Salvadoran gangs.

Months later — and months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s April order that the Trump administration “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return –he was brought back to the U.S. on June 6, only to face charges of human smuggling in Tennessee. The judge in that case eventually ordered Abrego Garcia released to home detention while his claim of vindictive prosecution in the Tennessee case proceeded.

Xinis, who got involved in the case when Abrego Garcia was first deported, issued a ruling Thurday that was highly critical of the administration’s actions in the case. She found that Abrego Garcia’s latest detention, since his August ICE check-in, was “again without lawful authority,” because the Trump administration has been holding him for deportation but has not made an effort to remove him to a third country.

The government’s “conduct over the past months belie that his detention has been for the basic purpose of effectuating removal, lending further support that Abrego Garcia should be held no longer,” Xinis wrote in her opinion.

Costa Rica has agreed to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee, but Justice Department lawyers could not give Xinis a clear explanation of why the Trump administration would not send him there. Instead, the administration has proposed deporting Abrego Garcia to several countries in Africa.

Back in Baltimore on Friday morning, dozens of supporters braved the cold to hold up signs, chant and then clap and cheer when Abrego Garcia walked back outside the ICE building a free man, chanting “todos somos Kilmar,” or “we are all Kilmar.”

“It’s definitely a good day, but it is a good day to know that he’ll be able to spend the holidays with his family, “said Baltimore City Councilmember Odette Ramos, who attended the rally.

“He and his family have been so brave to go through all of this and to have their story really symbolize, frankly, what so many others are going through,” she said. “The fight’s not over.”

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.