Federal Court Bars Removal Or Transfer, Criticizes Use Of Administrative Warrants; Trump Administration Expected To Appeal
Sunday, February 1, 2026, 9:00 A.M. ET. 5 Minute Read, By Jennifer Hodges, Political Editor: Englebrook Independent News,
SAN ANTONIO, TX.- A federal judge in Texas has ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to release a five-year-old boy and his father, who were taken into custody during an immigration operation in the Minneapolis, Minnesota area and later transferred to a family detention facility in South Texas.
In a sharply worded order issued Saturday, January 31, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas directed the federal government to release Liam Conejo Ramos, age five, and his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, “as soon as practicable,” and no later than Tuesday, February 3, 2026.
The ruling stems from a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of their detention.
Arrest Outside Minneapolis And Transfer To Texas;
According to court filings and contemporaneous reporting, ICE agents detained Conejo Arias on January 20 in Columbia Heights, a suburb of Minneapolis. Liam Conejo Ramos was taken into custody shortly afterward, following his return home from preschool.
Both father and son were subsequently transferred to a federal family detention facility in Dilley, Texas, a move that sparked public protests, drew national media attention, and prompted visits by several Democratic lawmakers to the facility.
Images of the child wearing a backpack while in federal custody circulated widely online, fueling criticism of ICE enforcement practices involving minors.
Court Blocks Removal Or Transfer;
Judge Biery’s order goes beyond mandating release. The court explicitly prohibited ICE and the Department of Homeland Security from transferring or removing the father and child while the habeas proceedings remain active.
The restriction is intended to prevent federal authorities from moving the pair to another jurisdiction or deporting them before the court can fully review the legality of the detention.
In his written opinion, Judge Biery characterized the enforcement operation as:
“An ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented effort to satisfy daily deportation quotas, even if it requires traumatizing children.”
Administrative Warrants Under Constitutional Scrutiny;
A central component of the ruling focused on the government’s reliance on administrative immigration warrants, which are issued internally by the executive branch rather than approved by an independent judicial officer.
Judge Biery found that such warrants fail to satisfy constitutional requirements for probable cause, writing that they amount to:
“The fox guarding the henhouse.”
The judge emphasized that the Fourth Amendment requires review by a neutral magistrate and warned against allowing executive agencies to serve as both accuser and authorizer in deprivation-of-liberty cases.
Conflicting Accounts Of The Arrest;
Federal officials and the family’s legal team presented sharply differing versions of events.
The Department of Homeland Security has stated that Liam was not specifically targeted and claimed that his father attempted to flee, leaving the child behind. DHS further asserted that officers attempted to place the child with his mother inside the residence, but she allegedly refused, and that the father requested the child remain with him.
However, attorneys for the family and school officials dispute that account, stating another adult was present in the home and offered to take responsibility for the child, but ICE officers declined.
Judge Biery noted the discrepancies in the factual record but emphasized that the constitutional deficiencies in the warrant process alone warranted relief.
Tone And Presentation Of The Order;
The ruling drew additional attention for its unusual tone and presentation. Reports indicate Judge Biery included religious references in the text of the opinion and attached a photograph of the child beneath his signature.
The judge framed the case as raising broader moral and constitutional concerns beyond the immediate detention.
Asylum Status And Prior Court Action;
Court filings indicate that Conejo Arias and his son have a pending asylum posture, and Judge Biery had previously issued a temporary order barring their removal while the habeas petition was under review.
Saturday’s ruling converts that temporary relief into a mandatory release order.
Administration Response And Likely Appeal;
As of publication, the U.S. Department of Justice had not issued a formal response. The Trump administration has not publicly stated whether it will seek an emergency stay of the order.
However, given the ruling’s broad constitutional reasoning and its challenge to longstanding immigration enforcement practices, legal analysts widely expect the administration to appeal the decision, potentially seeking immediate relief from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Any appeal could include an emergency request to pause the release order pending further review.
What Happens Next;
Absent intervention by a higher court, ICE is required to release both the child and his father by February 3, 2026, while the underlying habeas case proceeds.
The case is expected to remain closely watched as it raises significant questions about administrative warrant authority, due process protections, and the treatment of minors in immigration enforcement operations.
Editor’s Note:
This article was written by Jennifer Hodges, Political Editor for Englebrook Independent News, and is based on contemporaneous reporting and publicly available court filings, including coverage by local and national news organizations. All key facts, including the identities of the detainees, the release deadline, the prohibition on removal or transfer, and Judge Fred Biery’s constitutional analysis, were independently verified by Englebrook Independent News across multiple sources prior to publication.
