A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump delivered a stinging rebuke to the administration, ruling that Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated the constitutional rights of detainees in Minnesota by blocking their access to lawyers.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel issued the ruling on February 13, 2026 in Minneapolis, marking the 45th time a judge has ruled against the president’s mass detention policies. The decision came as the Trump administration announced it would retreat from Minneapolis, where enforcement operations had intensified in recent weeks.
Brasel, who was nominated by Trump in February 2018 and confirmed by the Senate six months later, rejected the government’s arguments that honoring detainees’ constitutional rights would create chaos.
The ruling addressed conditions at the Whipple Federal Building in Saint Paul, where many detainees have been held. Brasel ordered detainees phone access one hour before transfer to notify attorneys and family members.
Lawyers from The Advocates for Human Rights gained access to the facility Monday and documented troubling conditions. Hanne Sandison observed showers that lacked proper doors and described the filthy conditions at the facility.
The tour was cut short when a Department of Homeland Security employee became agitated and told Sandison and her colleagues they were interfering with operations, according to her account.
Minnesota became a focal point of the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, with operations there resulting in the deaths of two protesters. Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both 37 years old, died during demonstrations against the federal actions.
In her ruling, Brasel noted that before the administration’s operation, detainees at the Whipple Building had been afforded their rights and allowed to meet in person with their attorneys. She dismantled the government’s justifications for changing those practices.
The judge emphasized that operational capacity could not supersede constitutional requirements.
The ruling followed a class-action lawsuit filed last month on behalf of immigrant detainees against ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, and Kristi Noem.
Minnesota Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, has also expressed frustration with immigration enforcement practices. On January 26, Schiltz threatened to hold Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons in contempt over violations of court orders. In a written order, he noted that ICE had violated 96 court orders across 74 cases.
The pattern of court order violations has drawn sharp criticism from multiple judges. During a hearing February 3, Jerry Blackwell threatened to hold government lawyers in contempt after repeated failures to comply with judicial directives.
At that hearing, ICE attorney Julie Le expressed frustration with the situation. “The system sucks. This job sucks,” she told the court, describing how she and her colleagues at the U.S. attorney’s office were overwhelmed and received little guidance on how to proceed.
Le was subsequently removed from her post at the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota, according to multiple reports.
The constitutional issues at stake in these cases center on due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. When the government detains individuals, it must provide them with meaningful opportunities to challenge that detention and access legal counsel. These protections apply regardless of immigration status, as the Constitution’s due process clause extends to all persons within U.S. jurisdiction, not just citizens.
The right to counsel in immigration proceedings, while not identical to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal cases, remains a fundamental component of due process. Detainees must have reasonable access to attorneys who can help them navigate complex immigration law, prepare applications for relief from deportation, and challenge the legal basis for their detention.
When facilities restrict phone access, limit attorney visits, or transfer detainees without notice, they effectively deny these constitutional protections. Federal courts have consistently held that such restrictions must be narrowly tailored and justified by legitimate security or operational concerns, not mere administrative convenience.
The wave of judicial criticism extends beyond Minnesota. Judge Ana C. Reyes issued a separate ruling on February 2, 2026, rejecting the administration’s attempt to end protected status for Haitians. That decision affected approximately 350,000 Haitians living in the United States, many of whom reside in communities such as Springfield, Ohio.
The convergence of these rulings represents an unusual moment in federal jurisprudence. Judges appointed by presidents of both parties have issued sharp rebukes of immigration enforcement practices, suggesting concerns that transcend typical partisan divisions. When judges nominated by the same president who implemented these policies find them constitutionally deficient, it underscores the severity of the violations identified by the courts.
Immigration law experts note that the current situation differs markedly from previous enforcement surges. While past administrations have faced legal challenges over immigration policies, the volume and severity of court order violations documented in recent weeks appears unprecedented. Federal judges typically exercise considerable deference to executive branch decisions on immigration enforcement, making the breadth and intensity of current judicial criticism particularly noteworthy.
The detention conditions documented at the Whipple Building raise questions about the government’s capacity to maintain constitutional standards while rapidly expanding detention operations. Federal facilities designed for temporary holding often lack the infrastructure needed for extended detention, including adequate shower facilities, private consultation spaces for attorney meetings, and sufficient telephone access.
Brasel’s order requires immediate improvements to address these deficiencies. By mandating one hour of advance notice before transfers, the ruling aims to ensure detainees can maintain contact with legal counsel and family members who may be assisting with their cases. This notice requirement also serves to prevent the practice of transferring detainees to distant facilities as a means of disrupting their access to local attorneys already familiar with their cases.
The constitutional framework governing immigration detention has evolved through decades of litigation. While the government possesses broad authority to enforce immigration laws, that authority operates within constitutional constraints. Courts have established that prolonged detention without meaningful review violates due process, that detainees must have access to legal representation, and that detention conditions must meet minimum standards of decency.
As the Trump administration continues its enforcement operations, these judicial rulings establish clear parameters for how those operations must be conducted. The decisions serve as reminders that even in areas where the executive branch enjoys significant discretion, constitutional protections remain in force and courts retain the authority to enforce those protections.