Federal Judge's Scathing Order in Migrant Release Sparks GOP Outcry, Impeachment Calls
A federal judge’s weekend order compelling immigration authorities to release a detained migrant father and his five-year-old son has triggered a fierce political backlash, with Republican lawmakers accusing the judiciary of activism and demanding impeachment proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, appointed by President Bill Clinton, issued the brief but blistering order for the release of Adrian Conejo Arias and his son Liam. The ruling sharply criticized the Trump administration's deportation practices, suggesting they were driven by a "perfidious lust for unbridled power" and showed "ignorance" of foundational American principles.
The order, notable for its rhetorical flourish, included a Biblical reference to Jesus weeping and referenced a now-viral photograph of the young boy wearing a backpack. It argued the pair were seeking "nothing more than some modicum" of due process. Some legal observers immediately noted an unusual technical error: the judge dated his signature "February 31st."
The reaction from conservatives was swift and severe. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) added Judge Biery to a shortlist of judges he is urging the House to impeach, writing on social media, "This federal judge misspelled ‘impeach me—immediately.’"
"The order reads more like an activist manifesto than a judicial opinion," said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. "It’s bizarre and undermines the credibility of the bench."
Chad Mizelle, former chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, echoed the sentiment on X, initially questioning if the document was fake. "If this is real, it’s the most glaring validation that parts of our judiciary have become completely unhinged from the law," he wrote.
The Department of Homeland Security amplified the criticism, with spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin sharing a comment from Fox News analyst Guy Benson that labeled the order "lawless, overwrought resistance slop."
Case Background and Broader Context
The case highlights the ongoing, volatile battles over immigration enforcement between the Biden and Trump administrations. According to the family’s lawyer, Marc Prokosch, Arias and his son entered the U.S. legally at a Texas port of entry in 2024 using the Biden-era CBP One app for asylum seekers. They were later detained by ICE in Minnesota and transferred to the Dilley facility in Texas.
"They followed the legal process. ICE detained them despite their pending claims," Prokosch told reporters. The photo of young Liam became a rallying symbol for advocates criticizing Trump-era policies as overly aggressive.
A Politico analysis cited in the original report notes that while the Trump administration saw success in reducing illegal border crossings, its deportation practices were frequently challenged in court, with judges—including some Republican appointees—ruling against them hundreds of times.
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) confirmed the government complied with the order, returning the family to Minnesota as their legal case continues.
Voices from the Public
We asked for reactions from readers on this divisive issue:
"Finally, a judge with the courage to call out cruelty for what it is. Separating families and traumatizing children to meet quotas is un-American. This order wasn't 'unhinged'; it was morally necessary," said Michaela Torres, a social worker from Tucson.
"As a former immigration attorney, I find the legal reasoning here thin. The emotional language and biblical references are highly irregular and undermine the ruling's legitimacy, even if one sympathizes with the outcome," noted David Chen, a law professor in Boston.
"This is judicial tyranny, plain and simple. An unelected Clinton judge imposing his feelings on immigration policy. If this isn't grounds for impeachment, what is? The system is broken," fumed Gregory Miller, a small business owner from Ohio.
"The 'February 31st' date is being overblown as a gotcha moment. The core issue is whether our system has checks against enforcement overreach. This judge, however clumsily, applied one," argued Rebecca Shaw, a paralegal in Virginia.