Michigan Courts See Surge in Habeas Corpus Petitions Amid Immigration Detention Controversies
In an unexpected turn of events, Michigan’s U.S. District Courts have been inundated with over 800 habeas corpus petitions, with most cases originating from individuals held at the North Lake Processing Center, a private immigration detention facility in Northern Michigan. This influx has sparked a debate over the legality of current detention practices.
Habeas corpus petitions are legal tools that challenge the lawfulness of a person’s detention, asserting violations of due process rights. Since January 2025, analysis by Michigan Public reveals that judges have granted the majority of these petitions, compelling the government to provide bond hearings for immigrants or release them promptly.
The Trump administration has criticized these judicial decisions, claiming judges are acting “rogue” and that the law necessitates the detention of immigrants lacking legal status.
For individuals like Fernando Ramirez Adame, the process has been fraught with personal challenges. Adame, who holds a valid work permit until 2028, was apprehended at a weigh station in Indiana last September and later detained at North Lake. His family had planned for him to voluntarily return to Mexico due to health concerns, as his daughter Samantha Ramirez explained, “Our plan was, if you get got, you’re going (back) to Mexico. You’re not going to spend any time in (detention) because it’s not safe for him with his diabetes.” However, his detention extended for three months without a bond hearing.
Adame’s release came in January after a Republican-appointed judge in Michigan’s Western District granted his habeas petition. The North Lake facility has seen its population near 1,000, coinciding with a rise in habeas petitions in Michigan’s federal courts.
Attorney Robert Alvarez, who practices in Grand Rapids, noted the unprecedented nature of these filings, stating, “I had never had to file these in immigration detention cases in my 20-plus years practicing law.” His firm, among others, has been providing discounted legal services to challenge the administration’s policies.
In a July directive, the Department of Homeland Security declared that anyone entering the country illegally would face mandatory detention, without eligibility for bond hearings. This stance contrasts with historical guarantees of due process rights akin to those afforded to citizens under the Fifth Amendment.
Michigan’s judges have largely countered the administration’s interpretation, with rulings granting bond hearings as an essential due process step. Eastern District Judge Brandy R. McMillion, in a recent ruling, criticized the shift towards mandatory detention, emphasizing, “the recent shift to use the mandatory detention framework … is not only wrong but also fundamentally unfair.”
These judicial decisions have led to the release of individuals like Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos, a father of five with no criminal record, who was detained for almost two months following a traffic stop.
The controversy is poised to escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s detention policies, a decision not binding outside its jurisdiction.
Despite the legal victories, habeas petitions do not guarantee freedom. Many detainees are still denied bond due to perceived flight risks, a point highlighted by attorney Amy Maldonado. She noted a trend of immigration judges denying bond based on these grounds, despite winning habeas cases.
For individuals like Dalveilys Pineda, who fled Venezuela seeking asylum and has no criminal history, the journey remains challenging. Even after a habeas petition was granted, she remains detained due to a bond denial.
—
Read More Michigan News
