A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump delivered a sharp rebuke to the administration, finding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated detainees’ constitutional rights in Minnesota by limiting their ability to speak with legal counsel.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel issued her ruling on Feb. 13, 2026, in Minneapolis, marking the 45th time a court has rejected the president’s broad detention initiatives. The decision came as the Trump administration announced it would pull its operations out of Minneapolis after weeks of intensified enforcement.
Brasel, whom Trump nominated in early 2018 and who was confirmed that same year, rejected the government’s assertions that respecting detainees’ constitutional rights would cause operational chaos.
The ruling centered on conditions at the Whipple Federal Building in Saint Paul, where many people have been held. Brasel ordered that detainees receive phone access an hour before any transfer so they can notify their attorneys and families.
Attorneys from The Advocates for Human Rights visited the facility Monday and raised serious concerns. Hanne Sandison reported that the showers lacked adequate doors and that overall conditions were unsanitary.
The visit ended abruptly after a Department of Homeland Security employee became upset and claimed Sandison and her team were interrupting operations, according to her account.
Minnesota has increasingly become a focal point of the administration’s immigration efforts, which have been linked to the deaths of two protesters. Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both 37, were killed during demonstrations challenging federal enforcement actions.
In her decision, Brasel noted that before the administration’s operation began, detainees at the Whipple Building had been afforded their rights and were allowed in‑person attorney meetings. She dismissed the administration’s explanations for changing those practices.
The judge emphasized that administrative or logistical concerns cannot override constitutional duties.
Her ruling came after 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, appointed by President George W. Bush, has also expressed growing frustration with immigration enforcement. On Jan. 26, he threatened to hold Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons in contempt for repeatedly violating court directives, noting ICE had defied 96 orders across 74 cases.
Several judges have delivered similarly harsh criticism. During a Feb. 3 hearing, U.S. District Judge Jerry Blackwell warned that he was considering contempt sanctions against government lawyers for continued failure to follow judicial orders.
During that proceeding, ICE attorney Julie Le voiced her frustration. “The system ****. This job ****,” she told the court, saying she and her colleagues at the U.S. attorney’s office were overwhelmed and received little direction.
Le was later removed from her position in the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota, according to multiple reports.
The constitutional issues at the heart of these cases stem from the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantees. When the government detains a person, it must offer genuine opportunities to challenge that detention and to access legal counsel. These protections apply to everyone within U.S. territory, not only citizens.
Although the right to counsel in immigration matters differs from the Sixth Amendment right in criminal cases, it remains a crucial component of due process. Detainees must be able to reach attorneys who can help them navigate complex immigration rules, seek relief, and contest the legality of their confinement.
Restrictions on phone access, limited attorney visits, or unannounced transfers can effectively prevent detainees from exercising these rights. Courts have repeatedly held that such limits must be narrowly justified by legitimate security or operational needs, not bureaucratic convenience.
The wave of judicial criticism extends 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, a move that would affect about 350,000 people, including many in cities like Springfield, Ohio.
These decisions mark an unusual moment in the federal judiciary, as judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents challenge immigration enforcement practices. When judges selected by the same president who advanced these policies nonetheless deem them unconstitutional, it underscores the severity of the violations found.
Immigration experts say the current situation stands apart from past enforcement waves. Though prior administrations have also faced lawsuits, the volume and gravity of recent court‑order violations appear historically unmatched. Federal judges typically show deference to the executive branch on immigration, making the recent level of criticism especially striking.
Conditions at the Whipple Building highlight concerns about whether constitutional requirements can be met amid rapid expansion of detention efforts. Federal facilities designed for short‑term holding often lack the necessary infrastructure for extended detention, such as adequate showers, private spaces for legal meetings, and sufficient phone access.
Brasel’s order requires immediate improvements. By mandating one hour of notice before transfers, the ruling is intended to protect detainees’ ability to reach attorneys and family members and to prevent transfers that undermine established legal representation.
The constitutional framework governing immigration detention has evolved through decades of court rulings. Even with broad enforcement power, the government must still respect constitutional boundaries. Courts have held that extended detention without meaningful review violates due process, that detainees must be able to reach counsel, and that conditions must meet minimum standards of humane treatment.
As the Trump administration expands its enforcement operations, these rulings clarify the legal limits. They affirm that although the executive branch has significant discretion in immigration matters, constitutional rights remain fully in effect—and courts retain the authority to enforce them.