A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump issued a sharp condemnation of the administration, finding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) infringed on detainees’ constitutional rights in Minnesota by restricting their ability to reach their attorneys.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel released her decision on Feb. 13, 2026, in Minneapolis, marking the 45th judicial ruling against the president’s large-scale detention initiatives. The ruling arrived shortly after the Trump administration announced it would scale back operations in Minneapolis, where enforcement efforts had recently escalated.

Brasel, nominated by Trump in early 2018 and confirmed later that year, dismissed the government’s claims that upholding detainees’ constitutional protections would create disorder.

The decision focused on conditions at the Whipple Federal Building in Saint Paul, a primary holding location for detainees. Brasel ordered that detainees be granted phone access one hour prior to transfers so they can alert lawyers and relatives.

Attorneys from The Advocates for Human Rights entered the facility the previous Monday and reported concerning conditions. Hanne Sandison described showers with inadequate doors and noted the unsanitary state of the building.

Their visit ended abruptly when a Department of Homeland Security worker became upset and accused Sandison’s group of disrupting operations, according to her account.

Minnesota emerged as a central point in the administration’s immigration crackdown, with enforcement actions there linked to the deaths of two protesters. Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both young American citizens, died during demonstrations opposing federal activities.

In her decision, Brasel observed that prior to the administration’s operation, detainees at the Whipple Building had been allowed to exercise their rights and meet lawyers in person. She rejected the government’s rationale for altering those procedures.

The judge stressed that operational demands cannot override constitutional obligations.

The ruling stemmed from 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 President George W. Bush, has likewise voiced irritation with immigration enforcement practices. On Jan. 26, he threatened to hold Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons in contempt for repeated violations of court orders. In a written statement, he reported that ICE had disregarded 96 orders across 74 cases.

Persistent violations of judicial directives have triggered harsh criticism from several judges. During a Feb. 3 hearing, U.S. District Judge Jerry Blackwell threatened contempt sanctions against government attorneys for ongoing noncompliance.

At that same hearing, ICE attorney Julie Le expressed her frustration. “The system ****. This job ****,” she told the court, describing how she and other lawyers had been overwhelmed and lacked direction.

Le was later removed from her role at the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota, according to multiple reports.

The constitutional questions involved in these matters revolve around the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. When the government detains individuals, it must give them real opportunities to contest that detention and communicate with legal counsel. These protections apply to all persons on U.S. soil, regardless of their immigration status.

Although the right to counsel in immigration cases differs from the Sixth Amendment right in criminal trials, it remains a critical aspect of due process. Detainees need reasonable access to lawyers who can guide them through complex immigration procedures, pursue relief from removal, and challenge the legality of their detention.

Restrictions such as limiting phone access, hindering attorney visits, or transferring detainees without warning effectively strip them of these rights. Federal courts have repeatedly held that such limits must be carefully justified by genuine safety or operational needs, not administrative convenience.

The growing judicial pushback extends beyond Minnesota. Judge Ana C. Reyes issued a separate ruling on Feb. 2, 2026, blocking the administration’s attempt to revoke protected status for Haitians. That ruling impacted about 350,000 Haitians in the U.S., including many in communities like Springfield, Ohio.

The overlap of these decisions reflects an unusual moment in federal courts. Judges appointed by presidents from both major parties have delivered forceful critiques of immigration enforcement, signaling concerns that rise above partisan differences. When judges selected by the same president who created the policies find them unconstitutional, it highlights the seriousness of the violations identified.

Experts in immigration law note that the current situation is unlike prior enforcement surges. While previous administrations have also faced lawsuits over immigration actions, the sheer number and severity of recent court-order violations appear unmatched. Courts generally provide broad deference to executive immigration decisions, making the extent of current judicial criticism especially striking.

The conditions observed at the Whipple Building raise broader concerns about the government’s ability to meet constitutional standards while scaling up detention operations rapidly. Federal sites designed only for temporary holding often lack features needed for longer stays, including sufficient shower facilities, private attorney meeting rooms, and adequate phone access.

Brasel’s order calls for swift improvements to remedy these problems. By requiring one hour of notice before transfers, the ruling is intended to ensure detainees can stay in touch with lawyers and relatives supporting their cases. This advance notice also helps thwart attempts to relocate detainees to distant facilities to disrupt their relationships with local attorneys.

The constitutional framework governing immigration detention has been shaped through decades of court decisions. While the government has broad powers to enforce immigration laws, those powers must operate within constitutional bounds. Courts have determined that extended detention without proper review violates due process, that detainees must have access to legal counsel, and that detention conditions must meet basic standards of decency.

As the Trump administration proceeds with its enforcement campaign, these judicial rulings set clear limits on how those operations can function. They reaffirm that even in areas where the executive branch has significant authority, constitutional protections remain in effect and courts maintain the power to enforce them.