JUDGE TORCHES Trump Deportation Surge

A Clinton-appointed federal judge in Texas just torched Trump’s deportation surge in a child-detention case—while a Biden-appointed judge in Minnesota simultaneously let ICE’s enforcement push keep rolling.

Story Snapshot

A Texas federal judge ordered the release of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father, blasting the administration’s tactics and questioning the use of family detention.
A Minnesota federal judge refused to halt an ICE “surge,” allowing increased enforcement to continue despite allegations raised in court about profiling and force.
The Justice Department said it will appeal the Texas ruling, while the Minnesota case proceeds without an injunction blocking ICE operations.
The split rulings highlight how immigration enforcement is still being shaped courthouse-by-courthouse, even under a unified federal strategy.

Texas Judge Orders Release of Father and Child After Harsh Rebuke

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery ordered the release of Adrian Conejo Arias and his 5-year-old son, Liam Conejo Ramos, after the pair were held during removal proceedings. The family entered the U.S. from Ecuador in 2024 and sought asylum during the Biden-era border surge. Reports indicate the child became a public symbol of the case, and Biery’s ruling included unusually sharp language criticizing federal power and the impact of detention on children.

The dispute centered on how the father and child were handled after the father’s detention by ICE in late 2025 or early 2026. Accounts indicate the father faced an agonizing choice between separation and keeping his son with him in detention, and he chose family detention. ICE later transferred the pair to Texas, where the court became the venue for a fast-moving legal fight. The family was released and returned to Minnesota shortly after the ruling.

Minnesota Court Refuses to Block ICE Surge, Citing Limits on Injunctions

In Minnesota, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez denied a request by the state and local governments to stop an ICE enforcement surge in the Minneapolis area. The denial allowed the federal operation to continue, even as the judge acknowledged claims raised in the case involving racial profiling and excessive force. The decision reflected a more restrained approach to court intervention, with deference to federal enforcement authority while litigation continues.

The Minnesota dispute grew out of local resistance to expanded immigration enforcement and cooperation demands. Minnesota’s attorney general and local jurisdictions sued to halt the surge, arguing the operation disrupted communities and strained local institutions. The litigation also spotlighted tensions between federal immigration primacy and state or city policies that limit participation in immigration enforcement. For conservatives who want laws enforced consistently, the Minnesota ruling signaled that courts may still recognize the executive branch’s operational latitude.

The Bigger Battle: Federal Authority, State Cooperation, and Court-by-Court Outcomes

The split outcomes matter because the Trump administration’s immigration strategy relies heavily on execution in the interior, not only at the border. Texas has pursued an aggressive posture for years, including Senate Bill 4, and reporting indicates Texas local partnerships account for a significant share of ICE cooperation agreements. Minnesota, by contrast, has pushed back through litigation and non-cooperation policies, creating the kind of friction that turns immigration enforcement into a constitutional tug-of-war.

What Conservatives Should Watch Next: Appeals, Transfers, and Due Process Claims

The Justice Department signaled it will appeal the Texas ruling, underscoring how one high-profile loss does not automatically change broader enforcement plans. At the same time, the Texas case shows how individual detentions—especially those involving children—can become legal and political flashpoints that shape public perception. The available reporting also reflects ongoing disputes over asylum compliance and detention decisions, meaning the next major developments will likely come from appellate courts rather than headlines alone.

Trump’s deportation surge loses big in Texas court, but prevails in Minnesotahttps://t.co/4rR9l2m5Zy pic.twitter.com/BF2hmVwzwc

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) February 2, 2026

Texas SB 4 also remains a major legal marker because it tests how far states can go in immigration enforcement when federal priorities align—or conflict—with state ambitions. Separately, broader policy changes referenced in the research, including status and parole decisions affecting large numbers of migrants, remain politically volatile and legally contested. With border crossings reportedly far lower than the Biden-era peak, the enforcement debate is shifting toward interior removals, local cooperation, and whether courts will tolerate aggressive tactics.