Federal courts have been flooded with habeas corpus petitions challenging immigration detention at an unprecedented rate, with lawsuits increasing by over 85 times in the past year according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). As of May 2026, more than 45,000 habeas corpus cases have been filed across the country, representing the largest wave of such challenges in U.S. history.
The surge is directly tied to the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policies that took effect in 2025. When Trump took office in January 2025, approximately 40,000 immigrants were in detention. By early 2026, that number had nearly doubled to over 70,000, as the administration expanded who must be held without bond while immigration cases proceed.
A habeas corpus petition is a centuries-old legal mechanism, enshrined in Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, that allows detained individuals to ask a federal judge to review whether their confinement is lawful. In immigration detention cases, petitioners argue they should be released because of prolonged detention, lack of access to bond hearings, or inhumane conditions. According to TRAC data, habeas lawsuits in March 2026 alone totaled 9,059 filings, compared to just 105 in March 2025.
The Trump administration’s approach represents a departure from three decades of practice. Under longstanding regulations, immigrants who had been in the country for years and posed no security or flight risk were typically eligible for bond hearings in immigration court. The administration reinterpreted the law to classify many long-term residents as “seeking admission” at the border, making them subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing opportunity.
Federal judges have overwhelmingly sided with immigrants challenging this policy. According to ProPublica’s analysis, over 300 federal judges have ruled against the administration’s mandatory detention policies, while only 14 have upheld them. In four Midwestern states analyzed by The Marshall Project and The Midwest Newsroom, the vast majority of habeas cases filed since Trump’s inauguration were resolved in favor of detained immigrants through either outright release or a bond hearing.
The scale of the litigation has strained court resources and government attorneys’ offices. In Minnesota, where habeas filings jumped from a dozen in 2024 to over 700 in just two months, the U.S. Attorney’s office reported that staff were “continuously working over time” while the civil division operated at 50 percent capacity. Immigrants are filing an average of more than 200 habeas petitions daily across the country, with California and Texas accounting for about 40 percent of new cases.
The Western District of Texas, which includes San Antonio, has become the epicenter of habeas litigation, with 3,448 suits filed between October 2025 and March 2026. The Eastern District of California and Southern District of Texas followed, each with over 2,000 filings during the same period. Per capita, the Southern District of California had the highest rate of habeas filings relative to population.
The Legal Landscape Shifts
While district court judges have granted habeas relief at the highest rate in recent memory, the legal terrain is becoming more complex. Conflicting rulings from federal appeals courts have created uncertainty about which immigrants are entitled to bond hearings. In March 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of the Trump administration, interpreting “seeking admission” broadly to include immigrants who have been in the country for years. The 5th Circuit issued a similar ruling in February 2026.
These appellate decisions are binding in multiple states and have narrowed the grounds on which district judges can grant habeas relief. However, other federal appeals courts have ruled differently. In late April, the 2nd Circuit ruled against the detention policy, and the 6th and 11th circuits made similar decisions in May, creating a split among federal appellate courts. The question is now pending before four other appellate courts, setting the stage for potential Supreme Court review.
Immigration attorneys have shifted their legal arguments to focus on constitutional due process claims rather than the administration’s interpretation of “seeking admission,” as appellate courts have begun limiting habeas relief on that narrower ground. Suchita Mathur, an attorney with the American Immigration Council, noted that the level of consensus among district court judges in granting habeas relief is remarkable. “I’ve never heard or seen any legal issue with this much consensus among district court judges,” she said in May 2026.
Sources
- TRAC Reports — Data on habeas lawsuits increasing 85-fold year-over-year, filed immigration cases by nature, and geographic distribution of habeas filings
- The Marshall Project — Analysis of habeas corpus cases in four Midwestern states, judicial rulings, and appellate court decisions on mandatory detention
- ProPublica — Analysis of habeas petitions filed in Trump’s second term, comparison to prior administrations, and federal judge rulings
- Politico — Federal judges’ rulings on mandatory detention policies and appellate court decisions
- American Immigration Council — Expert commentary on habeas corpus litigation and detention expansion
