A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump sharply criticized the administration, ruling that Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated detainees’ constitutional rights in Minnesota by restricting their access to legal counsel.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel issued the decision on Feb. 13, 2026, in Minneapolis, marking the 45th ruling against the president’s large‑scale detention measures. The announcement came as the Trump administration revealed it would withdraw operations from Minneapolis following weeks of heightened enforcement activity.
Brasel, nominated by Trump in early 2018 and confirmed six months later, dismissed the government’s claims that respecting detainees’ constitutional protections would cause operational disorder.
The ruling focused on conditions at the Whipple Federal Building in Saint Paul, where many individuals have been detained. Brasel ordered that detainees be granted phone access an hour before any transfer so they can inform attorneys and relatives.
Attorneys from The Advocates for Human Rights visited the site on Monday and reported serious concerns. Hanne Sandison noted that showers lacked proper doors and described the facility as unsanitary.
The visit ended abruptly when a Department of Homeland Security staff member became upset and accused Sandison and her team of disrupting operations, according to her report.
Minnesota has become a major center of the administration’s immigration actions, which have been linked to the deaths of two protesters. Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both 37, were killed during demonstrations opposing federal enforcement efforts.
In her ruling, Brasel pointed out that before the administration’s operation, detainees at the Whipple Building had been granted their rights and permitted in‑person meetings with attorneys. She rejected the government’s rationales for altering those practices.
The judge stressed that administrative or operational concerns cannot override constitutional obligations.
The ruling followed a class‑action lawsuit filed in January on behalf of immigrant detainees against ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, and Kristi Noem.
Minnesota Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, a George W. Bush appointee, has likewise expressed frustration with immigration enforcement practices. On Jan. 26, he threatened contempt sanctions against Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons for repeatedly violating court orders, noting ICE had disobeyed 96 orders across 74 cases.
Multiple judges have sharply criticized the pattern of noncompliance. During a Feb. 3 hearing, U.S. District Judge Jerry Blackwell threatened to hold government attorneys in contempt for ongoing failures to follow court directives.
During that hearing, ICE lawyer Julie Le voiced her exasperation. “The system ****. This job ****,” she told the court, explaining that she and colleagues at the U.S. attorney’s office were overwhelmed and lacked meaningful guidance.
Le was later removed from her role at the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota, according to multiple reports.
The constitutional questions in these cases hinge on the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections. When the government detains someone, it must provide real opportunities to contest that detention and access legal counsel. These rights apply to all people within U.S. borders, not just citizens.
Although the right to counsel in immigration proceedings differs from the Sixth Amendment right in criminal cases, it remains essential to due process. Detainees must be able to reach attorneys who can help them navigate complex immigration rules, file applications for relief, and challenge the legal basis for their detention.
Restrictions on phone use, limited attorney visitation, or transfers without notice effectively block these protections. Courts have repeatedly ruled that such limitations must be narrowly justified by legitimate security or operational needs—not bureaucratic convenience.
The series of judicial rebukes extends well beyond Minnesota. On Feb. 2, 2026, Judge Ana C. Reyes issued a separate decision rejecting the administration’s attempt to terminate protected status for Haitians, affecting roughly 350,000 people, including many in places like Springfield, Ohio.
These rulings reflect an unusual moment in federal courts, with judges from both Republican and Democratic administrations criticizing immigration enforcement practices. When judges appointed by the same president who advanced these policies nonetheless find them unconstitutional, it highlights the seriousness of the violations identified.
Immigration scholars note that the current circumstances differ significantly from prior enforcement surges. While earlier administrations have faced challenges, the scale and severity of court‑order violations in recent weeks appear without precedent. Federal judges typically defer to the executive on immigration matters, making the intensity of recent criticism especially notable.
The conditions at the Whipple Building raise concerns about whether the government can meet constitutional standards while rapidly expanding detention operations. Federal facilities intended for short‑term holding often lack proper infrastructure for longer stays, including adequate showers, private legal meeting spaces, and sufficient phone access.
Brasel’s order mandates immediate improvements. By requiring one hour of notice before transfers, the ruling aims to preserve detainees’ ability to contact lawyers and family and to prevent transfers designed to disrupt established attorney‑client relationships.
The constitutional landscape shaping immigration detention has developed through decades of case law. Even though the government has broad enforcement authority, it must still abide by constitutional limits. Courts have held that long‑term detention without meaningful review violates due process, that detainees must have access to counsel, and that conditions must meet basic standards of humane treatment.
As the Trump administration continues its enforcement actions, these rulings outline clear legal boundaries. They reaffirm that even in areas where the executive branch has substantial discretion, constitutional rights remain fully applicable—and courts possess the power to enforce them.
