A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump strongly rebuked the administration, finding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated detainees’ constitutional rights in Minnesota by limiting their ability to reach legal counsel.
On Feb. 12, 2026, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel issued the ruling in Minneapolis—her 45th decision against the president’s expansive detention initiatives. The ruling came as the Trump administration announced it would pull its operations out of Minneapolis after weeks of intensified enforcement.
Brasel, nominated by Trump in 2018 and confirmed later that year, rejected the government’s position that ensuring detainees’ constitutional rights would create operational chaos.
The decision centered on treatment of detainees in the Whipple Federal Building in Saint Paul. Brasel ordered that detainees receive phone access one hour before any transfer so they can contact attorneys and family members.
Lawyers with The Advocates for Human Rights visited the building on Monday and raised serious alarms. Hanne Sandison reported that the showers lacked proper doors and described the space as unsanitary.
The visit ended suddenly after a Department of Homeland Security employee became upset and accused Sandison’s team of interfering with facility operations.
Minnesota has become a major hub of the administration’s immigration operations, which have been linked to the deaths of two protesters. Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both young U.S. citizens, died during protests against federal enforcement actions.
In her opinion, Brasel noted that prior to the administration’s recent initiative, detainees at the Whipple Building had been afforded their rights and allowed in‑person meetings with lawyers. She dismissed the government’s explanations for changing those procedures.
She emphasized that administrative challenges cannot override constitutional guarantees.
The ruling followed a class‑action lawsuit filed in January representing immigrant detainees against ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, and Kristi Noem.
Minnesota Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, appointed by George W. Bush, has also shown frustration with immigration enforcement practices. On Jan. 26, he threatened contempt sanctions against Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons for repeated violations of court orders, noting 96 breaches across 74 cases.
Several judges have condemned this pattern of disobedience. On Feb. 3, U.S. District Judge Jerry Blackwell warned government attorneys that they could face contempt for continued failures to follow court instructions.
During the same hearing, ICE attorney Julie Le expressed her frustration. “The system ****. This job ****,” she said in court, explaining that attorneys in the U.S. attorney’s office were overwhelmed and lacked clear guidance.
Le was later removed from her position in the Minnesota U.S. attorney’s office, according to multiple reports.
The constitutional issues at stake stem from the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections. When the government detains someone, it must provide genuine ways to challenge that detention and access legal counsel—rights that apply to all individuals in the U.S., not only citizens.
Although the right to counsel in immigration cases differs from the Sixth Amendment right in criminal trials, it is still fundamental to due process. Detainees must be able to contact lawyers who can navigate complex immigration laws, seek relief, and contest the basis for detention.
Restrictions on phones, limited visitation, or sudden transfers without notice can effectively block these rights. Courts have repeatedly found that such limits must be narrowly justified by real security or operational needs, not administrative ease.
The growing number of judicial criticisms extends far beyond Minnesota. On Feb. 2, 2026, Judge Ana C. Reyes issued a separate ruling blocking the administration’s effort to end protected status for Haitians, which would have impacted about 350,000 people, including many in cities like Springfield, Ohio.
These rulings mark a rare moment in the federal judiciary, where judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents have sharply criticized immigration enforcement practices. When judges selected by the same president who advanced these policies find them unconstitutional, it underscores the seriousness of the violations.
Immigration experts say the current situation is unlike previous enforcement waves. While earlier administrations faced legal scrutiny, the magnitude and severity of recent court‑order violations appear unprecedented. Federal judges usually defer to the executive branch on immigration, making the current level of criticism striking.
Conditions at the Whipple Building raise doubts about whether the government can uphold constitutional standards while rapidly scaling up detention. Federal facilities designed for short‑term holding often lack adequate infrastructure for extended stays, including proper showers, private spaces for attorney meetings, and enough phone access.
Brasel’s order requires immediate improvements. By mandating one hour of notice before transfers, it seeks to preserve detainees’ access to lawyers and relatives and prevent transfers used to sever attorney‑client connections.
The constitutional framework governing immigration detention has developed over decades. Although the government has broad power to enforce immigration laws, it must still comply with constitutional limits. Courts have found that prolonged detention without meaningful review violates due process, that detainees must have access to counsel, and that conditions must meet basic humane standards.
As the Trump administration continues its enforcement campaign, these rulings outline firm legal boundaries. They reaffirm that even in areas where the executive has significant authority, constitutional protections fully apply—and courts have the authority to enforce them.
