If the seemingly never-ending conflicts over immigration, deportation, mandatory detention, and removal proceedings are any indication, the executive and judicial branches may need to borrow the MMA ring erected outside the White House.
On June 11, 2026, U.S. District Judge Kyle C. Dudek’s exasperation with the Trump administration DOJ may have finally boiled over. In granting a Renewed Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to noncitizen Dmitrii Iastrebov, Judge Dudek used his order to lambast the antics of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and its willingness to abandon a position it had previously championed. After deriding the DOJ’s flip-flopping to keep Iastrebov held without a bond hearing with a disbelieving “Give me a break,” Judge Dudek ordered his immediate release, noting that it was necessary because the DOJ seemed incapable of following judicial directions.
The case illustrates the increasingly unstable and uncertain landscape of current immigration law. While the DOJ had originally agreed with Judge Dudek that Iastrebov deserved a discretionary bond hearing to secure a possible release, it was quick to waive any administrative appeal after an immigration judge refused to hold a hearing. The subsequent attempt to claim that Iastrebov wasn’t eligible in the first place earned the DOJ Judge Dudek’s derision and the immigration detainee’s temporary freedom.
“Masterclass in Litigation Cynicism”
The Trump administration has made an aggressive approach to immigration a focal point of its policies. Through the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), both part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the federal government has aggressively prioritized initiating removal proceedings and executing removal orders against a wide range of noncitizens it deems removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice and thus under the executive branch of the government. Immigration judges conduct removal and bond hearings in accordance with agency rules. However, some issues find a way into a federal court instead.
Such was the case with Iastrebov, who filed a habeas corpus petition in the Middle District of Florida. He claimed that he was subjected to unlawful detention without a bond hearing, in violation of both the INA and his Fifth Amendment rights. He actually demanded his immediate release, but on May 13, 2026, both Judge Dudek and the DOJ attorneys agreed that a bond hearing was warranted instead.
That legal applecart was upset five days later when an immigration judge ruled that Iastrebov was not covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and refused to hold a hearing.
Instead of making an administrative appeal based on the agreed-upon federal court order, the DOJ went back to Judge Dudek and, more or less shrugging, said that the previous agreement “was in error.” The government’s new argument treated him as if he fell under a harsher part of the immigration detention law, 8 U.S.C. § 1225, where people usually cannot even ask for a bond hearing. That same tactic — relabeling people to cut off bond — has already sparked a wave of recent court fights over ICE’s reclassification practices.
Kind of Impressed That There Wasn’t a Gavel Thrown
As those of you who have had, well, any dealings with a judge before can imagine, that did not go over particularly well. Judge Dudek’s order carries an air of disbelief as he lets the DOJ know that they “got it right the first time” and that a do-over is not going to happen. In fact, its decision to ignore a federal court order came back to bite them.
Citing the DOJ’s inability to follow the “Court’s explicit directions” and feeling “zero assurance” that it could “comply with the statutory process it previously championed,” Judge Dudek removed the Justice Department from the equation. Instead of ordering a bond hearing for Iastrebov once again, the judge granted him immediate freedom. Whether Iastrebov will be able to avoid deportation is unknown, but he’ll walk free until the hearing.
