Judge rules ICE likely violated Minnesota detainees’ constitutional rights
The Hill
by Fiona BorkFebruary 13, 2026
AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary
A federal judge in Minnesota ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) likely violated the constitutional rights of detainees by isolating them from their attorneys. U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel, appointed by President Trump during his first term, ordered ICE to cease this practice, which had left many detainees unable to access legal representation while in custody. The judge’s decision highlighted concerns over the treatment of immigrants detained in Minnesota facilities.
The case centered on ICE’s policy of restricting attorney visits for detainees, a move that was deemed unconstitutional due process violation. Judge Brasel emphasized the importance of allowing detainees to consult with their attorneys, stating that such access is critical to ensuring fair proceedings and protecting individuals’ rights under the law. Many of the affected detainees were held in privately-run detention facilities, raising questions about accountability and adherence to legal standards.
This ruling comes amid ongoing debates over ICE practices and the treatment of immigrants in U.S. detention centers. Advocacy groups have long criticized the agency for limiting access to legal resources, arguing that it undermines the ability of detained individuals to challenge their circumstances through the judicial system. The judge’s decision could set a precedent for similar cases nationwide, potentially influencing how ICE operates in other regions.
Politically, this ruling underscores the broader conversation about due process and immigrants’ rights in the United States. It highlights the tension between enforcement priorities and legal safeguards, particularly as critics argue that ICE often prioritizes detention over fair treatment. The outcome also reflects growing scrutiny of private detention facilities, which have faced accusations of mistreatment and lack of transparency.
For readers interested in politics and immigration policy, this case matters because it challenges systemic practices that affect thousands of detainees annually. It raises questions about the balance between national security and individual rights, and whether legal reforms are needed to ensure fairness in immigration enforcement. The ruling could inspire further legal actions and public discussions on these issues.
Verticals
politicsnews
Originally published on The Hill on 2/13/2026