The federal judiciary is grappling with an unprecedented surge in habeas petitions from detained immigrants, leading to significant delays and raising serious concerns about the conditions in detention facilities. Since President Donald Trump began his second term, the number of habeas petitions has skyrocketed, overwhelming federal courts and leaving many detainees in limbo.
The situation has become particularly acute in states like Mississippi and Louisiana, where federal judges are taking three months or more to rule on these cases. In contrast, courts in states like California, Florida, and Texas have managed to close cases more quickly, typically within a month and a half or less.
Regional Disparities in Case Processing
A ProPublica analysis of court records from over 70,000 habeas cases filed since January 2025 reveals stark disparities in how quickly different federal courts are resolving these petitions. In Mississippi, half of the resolved cases took 92 days or more, the longest of any state. This backlog has left many detainees waiting in prison-like facilities overseen by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which advocates say are substandard and unsafe.
The delays have led some immigrants to choose deportation or voluntary departure rather than wait for a federal judge to rule on their freedom. Liudmila Nafikov, whose husband has been detained in a large Mississippi facility for nearly two years, described the conditions as inhumane. “The amount of food they are being given is simply not enough, and people are left hungry,” she said. “For three days, they have had no hot food or hot water.”
Judicial Responses and Challenges
Federal courts have responded to the surge in habeas petitions in various ways. Some courts, like those in California, have temporarily assigned judges from other districts to help cut the backlog. Others have issued standing orders to shorten briefing schedules and assign public defenders to certain detainees without lawyers.
In the Georgia Middle District, home to the Stewart Detention Center, Judge Clay D. Land has directed magistrate judges to use preapproved language to order the government to provide a bond hearing without the district judge’s approval. This has helped the district close nearly 80% of its habeas docket with a median time of 29 days.
However, in states like Mississippi and Louisiana, the backlog remains a significant challenge. In Mississippi, a single judge, David C. Bramlette III, has been assigned 747 habeas cases during the second Trump administration, with about 72% of them still active. In Louisiana, over half of the resolved cases have taken 89 days or more to be decided.
Judicial Discretion and Learning Curves
The analysis also found that judges within the same district can take vastly different amounts of time to resolve habeas cases. For example, in Oklahoma’s Western District, two Trump-appointed judges have taken a median of 144 and 91 days, respectively, to resolve their cases, while their colleague Jodi W. Dishman has taken about 49 days.
Maggie Kopel of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance points out that the rapid expansion of ICE facilities in states like Oklahoma has led to a steep learning curve for courts that did not have a history of dealing with habeas cases. “That’s not an excuse,” Kopel said, noting that other districts without a history of detention centers have managed to close habeas petitions more quickly.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has acknowledged the challenges but maintains that detainees are provided with adequate care. A DHS spokesperson stated that the department is “working rapidly and overtime to remove these aliens from detention centers to their final destination—home.” Detained immigrants can request “a free flight home and a $3,000 exit bonus,” the spokesperson added.
Despite these efforts, the backlog in habeas petitions continues to pose a significant challenge for the federal judiciary. As the number of petitions remains far higher than before Trump began his second term, the need for additional judicial resources and streamlined processes becomes increasingly urgent.
