A federal judge in Kansas today ordered ICE to comply with its own detention regulations after finding that the agency unlawfully skipped the required due process in June 2025 when it re-detained our client who had been living under supervision for years.
The case matters not because it broke new doctrinal ground, but because it shows what habeas litigation is actually for: forcing the government to follow the rules it claims to be following already.
What ICE was required to do—and didn’t
When ICE revokes an order of supervision and takes someone back into custody, federal regulations require an informal interview shortly after re-detention. The purpose is basic and important: the noncitizen must be given a chance to respond to the government’s stated reasons for revoking release.
In our case, that interview never happened.
ICE nonetheless proceeded as if it had, continuing to detain our client for months without providing the process the regulations require. When we challenged the detention in federal court, the government initially claimed that an interview had occurred. They filed a sworn affidavit saying as much. But in reality, it hadn’t.
After we disputed that claim, ICE filed a notice conceding that no interview had taken place and withdrew its argument entirely. At that point, there was no factual dispute left for the court to resolve.
The court’s ruling
The District Court held that ICE violated its own detention regulations by failing to provide the required interview. That finding alone is significant. Courts are often reluctant to police agency process, particularly in immigration detention cases. But when there’s no dispute that they didn’t follow their own rules, sometimes courts have to.
Rather than treating the violation as harmless or technical, the court ordered ICE to provide the process it had unlawfully denied. The order requires ICE to conduct the mandated interview by a specific deadline set by the court.
Why this matters
This kind of ruling does not make headlines, but it matters in very real ways.
First, it confirms that ICE’s detention authority is conditional. Even after a final order of removal, the government cannot detain someone forever. Its power depends on compliance with the rules Congress and the agency itself put in place.
Second, the case shows why factual scrutiny matters in habeas litigation. The government asserted that required process had occurred. When pressed, it had to admit that its sworn affidavit was false. That concession changed the legal posture of the case entirely.
Third, court-ordered process is not empty relief. These interviews exist for a reason. They create a record, force the agency to articulate its reasoning, and provide a point of accountability that simply does not exist when detention decisions happen behind closed doors.
Why these cases are worth bringing
Habeas cases like this one are time-consuming. They require careful record development, close attention to regulatory detail, and a willingness to litigate issues that are easy to overlook and hard to explain.
They are worth bringing anyway.
They are often the only mechanism that forces the government to slow down, explain itself, and follow its own rules. Even when the relief is procedural, it is real relief. It changes the power dynamic. It replaces unchecked detention with judicial oversight. That is what happened here. And while our client remains detained for now, we will keep fighting for his release and for every ounce of due process the agency’s own rules guarantee.
Memorandum and Order, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Dec. 30, 2025).