Federal judge in Columbus issues order in immigration cases about detainees
A federal district judge in Columbus ruled Monday to allow discovery for attorneys who claim their clients, detainees at Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, did not receive fair bond hearings.
U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay Land issued a ruling that allows for discovery for the petitioners “in a targeted and limited manner.”
“Counsel’s circumstantial evidence in the present record can be summarized as follows: a perception that bonds are being denied more frequently during the last several weeks, some immigration judges are not thoroughly studying the record before they deny bond, some immigration judges are not considering the appropriate factors in deciding whether a detainee is a flight risk, and several immigration judges have been fired,” Land wrote.
Land wrote the court finds the evidence doesn’t support the inference that there has been a systemic failure of due process within the alien removal process.
The Ledger-Enquirer reported last month the attorneys for the detainees argued immigration judges are pressured to deny bonds after the Trump administration fired nearly 100 immigration judges in 2025, as reported by NPR, and the number of board of immigration appeals was reduced from 28 to 15.
The immigration attorneys also wanted the bond decisions for their clients, who they argue would have received bonds in the past, to be reversed.
In his ruling, Land stated the district court doesn’t have jurisdiction to review those decisions.
Arguments from Immigration attorneys
The immigration attorneys were led by Karen Weinstock, who agreed in February 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.
“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,” immigration attorney Danielle Claffey told the Ledger-Enquirer in February.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Taylor McNeill said in February that bonds were being granted, noting a person received bond in an Albany case.
“The Executive Branch’s aggressive enforcement of the immigration laws with a “stretch it to the limit approach” creates the potential for a disregard of traditional constitutional guardrails,” Land wrote in his decision. “Counsel should be allowed to discover reliable evidence that may substantiate the claim that this approach includes a corruption of the immigration review process.”
Testimony about immigration bond hearings
A Lumpkin-based immigration attorney, Marty Rosenbluth, testified before the court in February, sharing his experiences with his clients’ bond hearings.
Rosenbluth said a client, who was a noncitizen and father of three, had applied for a cancellation of removal that would have made him eligible to obtain a work permit, Social Security number and driver’s license, as long as the client fully participated in the court proceedings.
More than $1,600 in application fees were paid immediately, which the client would forfeit if the client stopped participating, Rosenbluth said.
He said the client’s hearing was originally scheduled to be with Judge Steven Fuller but was transferred to Judge Bianca Brown moments before the hearing.
Rosenbluth told Land he submitted hundreds of pages of evidence for the client’s case, but bond was denied, saying his client was a flight risk.
The hearing lasted about five minutes, Rosenbluth testified, and the judge “could not have read all of that evidence.”
Rosenbluth, who has been an immigration attorney for 18 years, told Land he has never seen decisions like this.
While being cross-examined by the government’s attorneys, Rosenbluth said he has not seen Immigration judges grant any reasonable bonds since January.
Rosenbluth told the Ledger-Enquirer 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?”