Judge Issues ‘Explicit Notice’ That Illegal ICE Detentions Could Trigger Sanctions

A West Virginia district judge has warned the Trump administration against unlawful immigration detentions. In a case involving Miguel Antonio Dominguez Izaguirre, who was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers while traveling near Summersville, West Virginia, on February 14, 2026, Judge Joseph R. Goodwin ruled that the detention was illegal.

He said “immediate release is the only appropriate remedy,” adding that when detention is unlawful and no constitutionally adequate bond hearing has been provided, continued custody cannot stand.

The 11-page memorandum opinion and order by the judge comes amid nationwide pushback from federal judges against new ICE policies aimed at reclassifying immigrants for detention.

Dominguez Izaguirre’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted on February 27.

The judge noted that the petitioner is a citizen and national of Honduras who is present in the United States as a noncitizen. “He entered the United States in 2016, and currently lives in Cana, Virginia, with his two young kids who are both United States citizens. Since his arrest, the petitioner has remained detained and is currently confined at South Central Regional Jail in Charleston, West Virginia,” Goodwin said in the order.

On February 19 2026, Dominguez Izaguirre’s lawyers filed a habeas corpus petition, according to a report by Law&Crime. In the petition, his lawyers sought his “immediate release from immigration detention, or in the alternative, an order directing Respondents to provide him with a constitutionally adequate custody hearing before a neutral decisionmaker with authority to assess the necessity of detention and to order release on appropriate conditions”.

The petitioner claimed that his ongoing confinement violates multiple constitutional, statutory, and regulatory protections, including the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution.

In its response, the government said it would rely solely on written arguments and exhibits, declining to present further evidence or witnesses, and said the case could be decided without a hearing.

The court found that it had jurisdiction in the case, that the petitioner was not seeking admission into the country and was subject to discretionary detention under federal law, and that his due process rights were violated.

Despite facing no criminal charges and posing no demonstrated danger or flight risk, the petitioner was held in jail without a custody hearing. As a result, the court denied the government’s motion to dismiss and granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In the order, Goodwin said that this case is one of 17 immigration habeas petitions assigned to the court this week. The government argues that the petitioners are subject to mandatory detention under federal law and that the court lacks jurisdiction—arguments that judges in this district have repeatedly and unanimously rejected. Despite multiple rulings throughout February 2026 affirming the court’s jurisdiction and finding the government’s interpretation of the immigration code incorrect, federal authorities continued arresting and detaining noncitizens without hearings. The court notes that the government has conceded prior rulings to control this case, leaving the court with limited options to enforce compliance with its orders.

If unconstitutional violations continue, the court warned it will use its full authority, including injunctions against detention without individualized hearings, contempt proceedings, monetary sanctions, and other necessary relief to enforce constitutional rights. “This court will not permit constitutional violations,” Goodwin said.