Federal Prosecutors in Western Washington Say They Cannot Defend Every Immigration Detention Case

Federal Prosecutors in Western Washington Say They Cannot Defend Every Immigration Detention Case

Federal prosecutors in Western Washington say they no longer have enough staff to defend the government in every immigration detention challenge filed in federal court. The office plans to stop opposing many of these cases, allowing judges to consider petitions without arguments from government attorneys.

The announcement comes as federal courts face a growing number of lawsuits from immigrants who claim they are being unlawfully detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Acting U.S. Attorney Charles Floyd informed U.S. District Judge David Estudillo of the change in a letter dated October 26, saying the volume of cases has placed a significant strain on the office's resources.

Growing Number of Immigration Detention Challenges

The cases involve petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal procedure that allows people to challenge the legality of their detention.

Immigrants held by federal authorities have increasingly used this process to argue that their detention violates federal law, including when they are not given an opportunity for a bond hearing.

According to Floyd, these cases often require extensive legal work, including court hearings, written arguments, motions and additional filings.

The growing workload has made it difficult for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington to respond to every petition while also handling other civil litigation.

Prosecutors Will Stop Opposing Many Cases

In his letter, Floyd said the office would no longer take responsibility for defending the government in many immigration habeas cases.

The decision does not mean prosecutors will abandon every case. The office will continue reviewing petitions and court orders and will decide where it considers a government response appropriate.

Floyd did not specify how many cases would go unopposed.

Under the approach outlined in the letter, if a government attorney does not enter an appearance within seven court days of a scheduling order, the court may assume the government will not respond.

Judges can then consider the detainee's petition without the usual government opposition.

A Federal Judge Orders Release in an Unopposed Case

The change has already been associated with a case involving Baljit Singh, an asylum seeker from India.

Singh was detained in September after he and friends reportedly reached an exit near the Canadian border while visiting Peace Arch Historical State Park.

U.S. District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright granted his habeas petition after government attorneys did not appear to oppose it. The judge ordered Singh's release within 24 hours.

The case illustrates how the new approach could affect the handling of immigration detention challenges in Western Washington.

However, an unopposed petition does not automatically guarantee release. Each case remains subject to judicial review and the applicable legal requirements.

Immigration Habeas Cases Are Straining Courts Nationwide

The increase in detention challenges is part of a broader national surge in immigration-related litigation.

Last week, border czar Tom Homan told Fox News that courts were dealing with approximately 85,000 immigration habeas cases nationwide.

The growing caseload has created additional pressure on federal judges and government attorneys as the Trump administration continues its immigration enforcement campaign.

The legal dispute also involves differing interpretations of federal immigration law.

Most federal appeals courts that have considered the issue have found that certain immigrants cannot be held without an opportunity for a bond hearing. However, the 5th and 8th Circuit Courts of Appeals have reached different conclusions in cases involving people accused of entering or remaining in the United States unlawfully.

Supreme Court to Consider Bond Hearing Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to consider whether immigrants who have been living in the United States are entitled to hearings to determine whether they should remain detained while challenging their potential deportation.

The case could have significant implications for immigration detention practices and the legal procedures available to people held by federal authorities.

For now, federal judges in Western Washington will continue reviewing individual petitions, including cases in which government attorneys choose not to participate.

The U.S. Attorney's Office has not announced how many future cases it expects to leave without a government defense.