Columbus federal judge hears complaint of systemically denied bonds for immigrants
Immigration attorneys representing detainees at Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, have asked a federal judge in Columbus to intervene in immigration court cases, arguing that their clients are not receiving fair bond hearings.
U.S. District Judge Clay Land did not make a ruling during Monday’s hearing, but he allowed the petitioners to request more information about bonds granted since January 2025 to see whether there is any evidence to support their claims.
Land made a standing order Jan. 29 aimed at ensuring immigrants receive timely bond hearings. The immigration attorneys, led by Karen Weinstock, argued that, while their clients have been receiving hearings since January, these hearings have not been fair and violate due process.
They argued that, after the Trump administration fired nearly 100 immigration judges in 2025 (reducing the number by approximately one-fourth, according to NPR) and the number of Board of Immigration Appeals members were reduced from 28 to 15, immigration judges are pressured to deny bonds, despite being required to hold bond hearings.
Immigration attorneys want the bond decisions for their clients, who they say would have received bonds in the past, to be reversed. They also want Land to order discovery so they could review the statistics on bonds granted since January 2025.
These statistics on the judges in question would help them show a distinction between how they ruled before a certain date versus after a certain date, immigration attorney Danielle Claffey told the Ledger-Enquirer.
“What we’re really looking for is to show that disparity from one week to the next with the very same judges — internally inconsistent and clearly not offering due process protection,” Claffey said.
Jurisdiction and the amount of evidence were the main points of consideration for Land during the hearing.
He questioned whether a federal district court judge has the authority to review decisions made by immigration court judges and whether the petitioners have enough evidence to prove the alleged unfair hearings were a systemic violation of due process.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Taylor McNeill for the Middle District of Georgia said the petitioners argued, because of “trends,” they believe the eight cases they brought to court deserve to be reviewed and reversed. But precedents in similar challenges were only on the framework as a whole, not eight specific cases, McNeill said.
McNeill argued that the district court couldn’t determine whether the immigration judge was a “neutral arbiter” in bond hearings without reviewing cases individually.
Weinstock agreed the district court can’t review how immigration judges come to their decision, nor review cases individually, but they can review if the overall process is flawed.
McNeill said bonds were being granted, noting there was a case in Albany where a person received a bond.
Weinstock argued this bond was $40,000. In immigration cases, all bonds are cash bonds, she said. The individual would have to pay the full amount, Wienstock said, which is equivalent to not having a bond at all.
Land questioned why the Board of Immigration Appeals would not be the body to review these issues rather than a district court.
When people are denied bonds, Weinstock said, the Board of Immigration Appeals process is not effective and often takes so much time, by the time their appeal comes around, it is often too late, and they are deported.
Ultimately, Land said, there isn’t enough evidence to prove a conspiracy or systemic denial of bonds. However, he chose not to make a decision during Monday’s hearing. He instead allowed more time for the immigration attorneys to gather evidence.
Land gave the immigration attorneys seven days to file a motion seeking discovery, and he gave the government seven days to file its response. Land said he is skeptical about the immigration attorneys’ arguments regarding a systemic issue and his jurisdiction, but he wants to give them the opportunity to make every argument they could with this limited discovery.
“He basically told us, you’ve got to give me more evidence to order discovery,” Weinstock said. “And you have to give me my authority, what authority I have, to order the government to do discovery because the government is the one who has the evidence that we seek.”
Local immigration attorney testifies about his experience
Marty Rosenbluth, an immigration attorney based in Lumpkin and who primarily practices at the Stewart Immigration Court, testified under oath about his experiences in bond hearings for his clients.
Bonds are particularly important for detained individuals because they offer a chance to leave detention to get their affairs in order before deportation, take care of loved ones or gather the necessary documentation they need to plead their case, Rosenbluth said during his testimony.
Rosenbluth shared a story about one of his clients, a noncitizen and father of three. He said his client had applied for a cancellation of removal that would have made him eligible to obtain a work permit, Social Security number and a driver’s license, as long as he was fully participating in the court proceedings.
Fees for this application were paid immediately and cost more than $1,600, Rosenbluth said.
If the client had stopped participating, the money he had paid would be forfeit.
Originally, the client’s hearing was scheduled to be with Judge Steven Fuller, Rosenbluth said, but moments before the hearing, it was transferred to Judge Bianca Brown.
Rosenbluth told Land he had submitted hundreds of pages of evidence for the client’s case, but Brown denied the bond, saying his client was a flight risk. The hearing lasted about five minutes, he said, and the judge “could not have read all of that evidence.”
“I’ve never seen decisions like this,” Rosenbluth, who has been an immigration attorney for 18 years, told Land.
While being cross-examined by the government’s attorneys, Rosenbluth said he has not seen Immigration judges grant any reasonable bonds since January.
The judges are not looking at the evidence or the facts of the case, he told the Ledger-Enquirer.
Rosenbluth said he had a previous case with the same judge where his client had two DWIs, which would presume that the bond would be denied, but the judge granted it because of the facts of the case.
“It’s just very discouraging because our clients have families,” Rosenbluth said. “My client had 20 years in the United States and three U.S. citizen kids. Why is he possibly a flight risk? Why would he do that?”
This story was originally published February 25, 2026 at 2:35 PM.
