U.S. Attorney’s Office Faces Challenges in Immigration Cases

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington is facing resource constraints in defending excessive cases against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The office will allow judges to decide on numerous petitions without governmental opposition.

In a communication to U.S. District Judge David Estudillo, Acting U.S. Attorney Charles Floyd highlighted the overwhelming volume of immigration-related habeas corpus cases. These cases, filed in dozens weekly, permit individuals to legally contest their detention by the government. Consequently, his office will not defend many of these cases moving forward. The letter lacked specifics on the exact number of cases impacted.

Case numbers have surged to unprecedented levels during the administration’s extensive immigration measures. Over 93,000 immigration-related habeas cases have been filed nationwide since Trump’s return to office in January 2025, according to a ProPublica tracker.

These rulings have vexed administration officials. Judges ordering detainees’ release have criticized ICE for neglecting due process rights and occasional noncompliance with court directives. Newsweek reached out to Floyd’s office and the Department of Homeland Security, which administers ICE, for comment via email.

Content of Floyd’s Letter

Floyd’s letter noted the surge in filed cases has severely impaired the government’s capacity to respond. This also affects handling other unrelated civil litigation in the district. Addressing each case initiates lengthy litigation, consuming prosecutors’ time in preparing reports, briefings, and responses.

The USAO unfortunately does not have the available resources, at this juncture, to continue entering AUSA appearances in every case. Thus, going forward, in order to conserve resources, there will be many habeas cases in which the USAO will no longer assume responsibility for providing a defense on behalf of the respondents.

Trump Reflects on Deportation Policy

In a recent interview, Trump admitted that the administration’s deportation approach was excessively stringent, impacting Republicans in the latest midterm elections. On CBS’ 60 Minutes, Trump acknowledged that his immigration crackdown both helped and harmed Republicans in the midterms, where Democrats regained control of both the House and Senate.

I think I got an A+ for closing up the border. I get very high marks for getting the bad ones out. But I get hurt because we also took people that had good jobs, that created one violation, or breaking of the law, and that was that they came into the country illegally.

Trump stated that there is a substantial portion of the population believing such individuals should either remain in the country if they are law-abiding or be deported. Acknowledging the policy’s harshness, Trump promoted Stephen Miller, a key advisor in hardline immigration policies, to White House chief of staff.

Supreme Court to Evaluate Detention Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court plans to review a policy denying bond hearings to certain immigrants. Floyd, a former immigration judge, has supported banning immigration courts from granting bond to detainees. The court will examine if immigrants accused of entering illegally must remain detained throughout their cases or deserve bond hearings.

The Department of Homeland Security expressed confidence regarding the Supreme Court hearing arguments about mandatory detention and decisions from various federal courts. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue against detention without bond hearings.

Try as it might, the government cannot twist the law to detain immigrants for months or even years on end without a bond hearing. – Michael K.T. Tan, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project

Most federal appeals courts have found prolonged detention without bond hearings violates federal law. However, the Fifth and Eighth Circuits agreed with the administration that immigrants accused of unlawful entry must remain detained while awaiting deportation outcomes. The Supreme Court’s oral arguments are anticipated for late February or early March 2027, with a decision expected by next summer.