A federal judge’s recent order directing the release of a Colorado immigration detainee illustrates how federal courts served as an important constitutional check when administrative proceedings failed to protect due process rights.
The ruling resolved a habeas corpus action handled by Holland & Hart corporate immigration partner Samantha Wolfe and litigation partner Josh Hurwit. Their client — a local business owner, husband and father of four U.S.-citizen children — had lived in the United States since age 17. Although he held both an approved marriage-based petition and an approved unlawful presence waiver and was awaiting a government-scheduled consular visa interview, he was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in January after a drunk driver struck his vehicle.
Immigration authorities held him at the Aurora ICE Processing Center for months without access to a bond hearing. According to Wolfe, immigration judges in Colorado and across the country had increasingly disclaimed jurisdiction to hold bond hearings for individuals who initially entered the country without authorization, categorizing long-term inland residents in the “same legal bucket as individuals apprehended directly at the border,” she said. She noted, however, that following a late-June decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, immigration judges in Colorado have resumed holding bond hearings for many of those individuals.
Wolfe and Hurwit challenged the detention in federal court, arguing that the Fifth Amendment required a constitutionally adequate bond hearing in which the government — rather than the detainee — bore the burden of proving that continued detention was justified because the individual posed either a flight risk or a danger to the community. Although the district court granted habeas relief and ordered such a hearing, the assigned immigration judge denied bond without placing that burden on the government. The legal team then filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment. Upon reviewing the complete audio record of the bond hearing, U.S. District Judge Nina Y. Wang granted the motion and ordered the client’s immediate release on May 15, finding that repeated procedural due process violations rendered his continued detention unlawful.
Why Procedural Rules, Record-Building Are Critical to Federal Relief
For litigators, the case illustrates why strict adherence to procedural safeguards remains vital when administrative mechanisms break down.
“Procedural requirements are not just there to make the steps of a case go smoothly,” Hurwit said. “They’re there to actually ensure that people’s substantive rights are protected.”
Moreover, as administrative courts face heightened internal pressures, federal courts remain a critical forum for constitutional oversight. “Federal courts are still, and maybe the last, best venue to vindicate individual rights and certainly immigration rights, given the pressures and developments in the immigration administrative court system,” he said.
Crucial to the outcome was the meticulous development of the underlying administrative record long before seeking federal intervention.
Hurwit said the record Wolfe developed throughout the immigration administrative process “allowed us to show the federal judge exactly what was going on, exactly what violations of due process were occurring. And that all made, I think, the decision for the federal court much clearer.”
Bench Turnover, ICE Operations and Impact on Employers
The case unfolded during a time of increasing interior enforcement and significant turnover within the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Wolfe noted that nationwide, at least 135 immigration judges have been terminated since January 2025, including the June 2026 removal of seven-year bench veteran Judge Freya Bergie in Colorado.
“That is one of the most chilling effects that we are seeing,” she said. “You have judges that are following the law being removed without cause.”
At the same time, interior enforcement operations are rising across Colorado and Wyoming, creating what Wolfe described as a combination of “increased enforcement with diminished procedural protections” that heightens the risk of constitutional violations.
Compounding these challenges is a critical shortage of removal defense representation in the region. “Ninety percent of individuals in immigration court removal proceedings are pro se, and there are only about 100 to 150 attorneys in Colorado who handle removal proceedings,” Wolfe said. “Access to justice is a real issue.”
How to Navigate Detention Claims
For members of the bar, the case offers practical takeaways for navigating current immigration detention challenges, Wolfe and Hurwit said:
- Preserve the administrative record: Thoroughly exhausting administrative remedies and creating a well-documented factual record, including complete audio recordings, is essential if federal court intervention becomes necessary.
- Collaborate across disciplines: One strategy for federal habeas actions involves pairing substantive immigration expertise with federal litigation experience.
- Prepare employers: Corporate counsel should proactively review workforce employment authorization compliance and understand available options if an employee is detained.
- Pursue pro bono opportunities: Hurwit urged litigators and non-specialists to take on pro bono habeas matters, pointing to strong mentorship networks within the immigration bar.
“To be able to fight for someone who, generally speaking, is just trying to follow the American dream in a really challenging environment is very rewarding,” Hurwit said.
Wolfe concurred, adding that she has given considerable thought to what her client lost while in detention, from not being present for a son’s play to missing another child being sworn into the Wyoming Air Guard.
“Those were moments that he can never get back. And nothing is ever going to restore that,” she said. “I would encourage practitioners to not give up and to keep fighting for your clients.”