Carlos Castaneda said the order reaffirms the job of judicial oversight in immigration enforcement and sheds light on constitutional questions on executive power.
SAN ANTONIO — A San Antonio immigration attorney is now weighing in on the decision by a U.S. District Court judge ordering the release of a 5-year-old boy and his father from a migrant detention center in Dilley.
“This judge is saying that this moment involves major constitutional issues that are being breached,” said Carlos Castaneda, an immigration attorney who has clients currently at the South Texas Family Residential Center.
Over the weekend, 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father were accompanied by U.S. Representatives Joaquin Castro and Ilhan Omar to Minnesota following a judge’s order for federal authorities to release the Ecuadorian migrants from the ICE facility. This came after being detained by federal law enforcement in Minnesota in late January.
U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, who signed the emergency order issued on Saturday, criticized the government’s actions and questioned the legal basis for holding the pair. The ruling was in response to a habeas corpus petition challenging the constitutionality of their detention.
Biery’s opinion emphasized that continued detention without an individualized determination of probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The judge wrote that administrative warrants issued internally by the executive branch are insufficient.
The government has defended the detention with officials saying ICE did not target or arrest Liam. Law enforcement were focused on detaining his father, saying he illegally entered the U.S. in 2024. But the family’s attorney argued their pending asylum claim allows them to remain in the country.
Castaneda said the ruling reaffirms the role of judicial oversight in immigration enforcement and highlights ongoing constitutional questions about executive power. Castaneda noted, however, that it’s unclear whether this case will have broad impact on other immigration cases nationwide, even as it draws attention to similar habeas decisions.
“This judge is saying that this moment involves major constitutional issues that are being breached,” Castaneda said. “And this order did specify that if either of these respondents are detained in the future then they must have an individual immigration bond as per normal. I’ve seen other cases regarding the same form of relief, habeas corpus petition, that have been adjudicated in the course of one or two months. I won’t say that this is going to change things overall. But it is a reflection that many individuals in the federal judiciary do see some of these actions by the executive branch as excessive and non-law abiding.”