Judges Rule Hundreds of Immigrants Illegally Jailed in Michigan

Federal courts find mandatory detention without bond hearings unconstitutional, sparking backlash from Trump administration

Mar. 18, 2026 at 11:01pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Federal judges ruled that hundreds of Michigan immigrants were detained without bond hearings, violating constitutional law. The Trump administration expanded mandatory detention policies targeting immigrants without criminal records, leading to more than 800 habeas corpus cases being filed in Michigan federal courts since 2025, with judges granting relief in about 90% of rulings. The Department of Justice criticized federal judges for overruling immigration judges' bond decisions amid ongoing appeals.

Why it matters

This case highlights the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement tactics, which have led to the unconstitutional detention of hundreds of immigrants in Michigan who were not given a chance at release on bond. It raises concerns about the use of mandatory detention as a deterrent, rather than to ensure people show up for hearings, and the incentives for immigration authorities to maximize arrests and detentions.

The details

Federal judges across the country and in Michigan ruled in favor of at least 4,400 detainees between October 2025 and February who filed habeas corpus petitions, determining their detainments violated a nearly 30-year-old law allowing most immigrants already in the United States to be released on bond. The Trump administration widened its use of mandatory indefinite detention in July 2025, rendering any noncitizens who had arrived in the country 'without inspection' eligible for it. Judges sided with the detainees more than 500 times through February 2026, granting approximately 90% of the habeas petitions they ruled on.

  • In July 2025, the Trump administration implemented a policy that rendered any noncitizens who had arrived in the country 'without inspection' eligible for mandatory indefinite detention.
  • Since Trump's January 2025 return to office and the opening of the Midwest's largest immigrant detention facility in northern Michigan, more than 800 habeas cases have been filed in Michigan's federal courts.
  • From January to mid-October 2025, immigration arrests in Michigan skyrocketed from at least 970 in 2024 to at least 2,400.
  • On March 18, 2026, the Trump administration will argue against a judge's order freeing a Detroit father of five in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

The players

Carlos Santodomingo Sánchez

A 29-year-old ex-Venezuelan police officer and self-described 'man of the law' who came to the United States in 2023 seeking asylum and was later detained without a bond hearing for more than three months.

Miriam Aukerman

A senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan who represents multiple people in detention cases set to be heard by the federal appeals court this week.

Ruby Robinson

The managing attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center who says immigration authorities are incentivized to jail as many as possible by arrest quotas and funding increases for detention facilities.

Brandy R. McMillion

An Eastern District Judge who granted a habeas petition for a 46-year-old Detroit man, writing that 'the recent shift to use the mandatory detention framework … is not only wrong but also fundamentally unfair.'

Edith H. Jones

A Reagan-appointed Judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled that mandatory detention without bond is permissible for immigrants who initially entered the country without inspection.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“As a result of [the Trump administration's] radical reinterpretation of the law, the government's position is we're going to lock them up and throw away the key. There is no way that [the detainees] can go home to their families.”

— Miriam Aukerman, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU of Michigan

“These federal judges simply disagree with the outcomes of the immigration judge bond decisions. They are impugning the integrity or competence of our immigration judges solely to give them a hook to review the IJ decisions they disagree with but would otherwise be unable to directly review … they should focus on impartially interpreting immigration law to keep the American people safe.”

— Department of Justice Spokesperson

“I cried a lot. … I felt helpless. No immigrant is prepared to be locked up.”

— Carlos Santodomingo Sánchez

“The statute unambiguously provides for mandatory detention. The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior Administrations.”

— Edith H. Jones, Judge, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

“the recent shift to use the mandatory detention framework … is not only wrong but also fundamentally unfair. In a nation of laws vetted and implemented by Congress, we don't get to arbitrarily choose which laws we feel like following when they best suit our interests.”

— Brandy R. McMillion, Eastern District Judge

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.