President Donald Trump arrives to speak during a roundtable on criminal cartels in the State Dining Room of the White House, Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025, in Washington, as Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem watch (AP Photo/Evan Vucci).
A federal judge in Indiana has ordered the Trump administration to “immediately” release a Brazilian man who argued he is “unlawfully detained in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States.”
The six-page opinion and order is the latest judicial foray nixing controversial efforts to reshape how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) classifies immigrants in order to detain them.
The petitioner, Robert Mendes Barbosa, won habeas corpus release by convincing U.S. District Judge Damon R. Leichty, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, that his “detention is unlawful under the applicable statutory scheme,” a reference to federal immigration law.
Mendes Barbosa entered the country near San Diego in 2024 and was detained before being “released on his own recognizance,” the order explains. In January 2026, he was arrested by ICE agents in Boston and then transferred to a detention facility in Miami.
“He argues that his detention violates applicable statutes, the Fifth Amendment”s Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act,” the order reads. “He seeks immediate release from custody or alternatively an individualized bond hearing.”
The judge, however, decided the case solely on the merits of immigration law — tracking with a recent series of similar cases in which detained immigrants have won petitions for the writ of habeas corpus in response to a novel interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) advanced by the Trump administration.
In July 2025, ICE issued the new policy, instructing all agents to deny bond for anyone who entered the country without “inspection,” in a memo that has since opened the floodgates of litigation.
Under the terms of the policy, such immigrants are to be detained “for the duration of their removal proceedings” unless granted parole — a rarer form of release. In real terms, however, the Trump administration has made clear such detentions are intended to be indefinite.
Over the past eight months, in hundreds of district court disputes, judges have considered the interplay and applicability of two distinct INA statutes that outline the government’s detention authority. Many judges have rephrased those statutes using language from a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling penned by Justice Samuel Alito.
In short, the government claims ICE has the authority to subject immigrants to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b), which applies to “aliens seeking entry into the United States.”
Conversely, advocates for immigrants — as well as most judges who have ruled on the matter — have instead turned to 8 U.S.C. §1226(a), which applies to “aliens already present in the United States.”
In the Wednesday ruling, the court once again rejects the government’s claims — here represented by the warden of the detention facility — regarding the proper statute under which to view the case.
Leichty, for his part, has repeatedly rejected such arguments in at least three prior cases about the new indefinite detention policy.
The judge explains his position on the basic issue at length:
The court continues to be of the view that jurisdiction is secure insofar as this opinion goes, and that §1225(b)(2) cannot reasonably be interpreted in the manner urged by the government. Notably, the court of appeals recently held in deciding a motion for a stay pending appeal that the government was not likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that the mandatory detention provision contained in §1225(b)(2) applies to individuals who are arrested in the interior of the United States. Though preliminary, that opinion offers early echoes of what this court has done. This opinion, together with others, illustrates just how complicated this patchwork of statutes is, but the court remains persuaded in its current course[.]
Turning more directly to the facts of Mendes Barbosa’s detention, the court finds them unavailing for the government.
“It seems no warrant was issued here,” the judge explains. “Mr. Mendes Barbosa is unaware of an arrest warrant. The respondents usually will tell the court when there has been a warrant, but here they do not argue there was one and they do not produce one.”
That, in the end, is the long and short of it.
“Warrantless arrests are permitted by statute only when certain conditions are met,” the judge muses. “The Warden does not argue these preconditions exist here so as to authorize Mr. Mendes Barbosa’s detention under a statutory provision other than §1225(b)(2).”
In the absence of any evidence the petitioner actually did anything to violate the INA, Leichty says, the government must release him.
Again, the order, at length:
Mr. Mendes Barbosa has met his burden of showing a “deprivation of rights leading to unlawful detention.” Without being dismissive of any worthy goals that might be achieved through the concerted enforcement of our immigration laws, both noncitizens and the government alike must comply with the laws as they exist, as written and as they must work within constitutional demands. Whether the government might secure a warrant and rearrest him at or after his release and thus proceed under §1226(a), that has not occurred today. That leaves the court with only one option—Mr. Mendes Barbosa must be released[.]
In a footnote, the judge says the constitutional and administrative law claims are not discussed due to the relief reached on the INA claim.
The judge also expects quick compliance — giving the warden until Thursday to comply with the release order and subsequently file a notice documenting such compliance.
