What legal remedies have been pursued in federal court challenging summary removal and detention practices since 2010?

1. Habeas corpus and petitions for release: the frontline remedy

Habeas petitions attacking the lawfulness of custody remain the primary vehicle for detainees seeking release or bond hearings, and courts have accepted statutory and constitutional arguments under habeas even when other review routes are blocked; the Supreme Court and circuit law recognize that habeas survives some INA restrictions, and litigants continue to use habeas to press claims about unlawful or indefinite detention ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Petitions for review and jurisdictional chokepoints

Where detention follows a “final order” of removal or other administrative rulings, challengers often file petitions for review in federal courts of appeals, but Congress and the courts have repeatedly narrowed that route: the INA channels many claims into limited review paths and the Supreme Court has underscored that petition-for-review provisions can preclude broader equitable relief in district court, forcing plaintiffs into narrow appellate review or rendering some claims non‑justiciable ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Class actions and nationwide injunctions to pause practices

Civil-rights and immigrant-rights groups have pursued classwide suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against systemic expedited removal or detention practices—for example, district courts have at times enjoined national implementation of policies on behalf of nationwide classes—though such sweeping relief has prompted appellate and Supreme Court disputes over proper remedy and venue ^[3].

4. Challenges to procedural features: bond hearings, timing, and reinstatement

Federal litigation since 2010 has targeted lack of individualized liberty determinations—pressing claims that prolonged detention without periodic bond hearings violates due process—and has also litigated the lawfulness of “reinstatement of removal” procedures; courts are split, with some circuits allowing review of constitutional defects and others deferring to statutory limits, prompting continued use of both habeas and petitions for review ^{[6] [7]}.

5. Conditions-of-confinement and constitutional claims

Beyond release, detainees and advocacy groups have used federal courts to challenge detention conditions—alleging medical neglect, overcrowding, and other constitutional violations—invoking Eighth and Fifth Amendment frameworks and comparing immigration confinement to pretrial criminal detention standards; settlement-driven limits (like Flores for minors) and policy enforcement continue to shape these suits ^{[8] [4]}.

6. Supreme Court rulings that reshaped remedies and strategy

Key high‑court decisions since 2010—often cited by both sides—have constrained review of expedited removal and border-entry challenges (e.g., Thuraissigiam’s posture, and later decisions addressing §1231 detention and reviewability), pushing advocates to reframe claims as habeas petitions, statutory challenges, or as conditions-of-confinement cases rather than direct attacks on removal orders ^{[5] [2]}.

7. Practical and doctrinal obstacles: jurisdiction, standing, and deference

Litigants face steep statutory jurisdictional limits, standing hurdles, and the “plenary power” tradition that invites deference to immigration authorities; commentators and courts note that explicit INA language and Supreme Court interpretations often foreclose broad constitutional remedies unless plaintiffs can fit claims into recognized exceptions or show unconstitutional detention in concrete terms ^{[7] [9]}.

8. Recent tactical shifts and ongoing gaps

In response to stacked procedural barriers, advocates have diversified tactics—combining individual habeas claims with class litigation, pressing conditions claims, and targeting state‑level cooperation (e.g., challenges to 287(g) agreements) as a way to limit enforcement capacity—but reporting and case law indicate persistent limitations on federal courts’ ability to provide sweeping relief for summary removal systems ^{[10] [11]}.