Has ICE repeatedly ignored green card holders and asylum seekers due process rights over and over? Have courts ruled this?
Executive summary
The weight of recent reporting shows a widespread pattern—advocates, legal clinics, and academic observers document that ICE and Department of Homeland Security policies since 2025 have repeatedly funneled lawful permanent residents and asylum seekers into removal tracks or detention practices that raise serious due-process concerns, and multiple federal courts have begun to push back in specific cases [1] [2] [3]. The government defends its authority to arrest and detain noncitizens, but courts and litigants have both found unlawful tactics—especially around courthouse arrests, mass dismissals into expedited removal, and denial of bond hearings—on a piecemeal, case-by-case basis [4] [5].
1. Pattern alleged: courthouse arrests and dismissals that curtail hearings
Since at least May 2025, reporting by the American Immigration Council, National Immigration Forum, and advocacy groups documents a coordinated rise in ICE attorneys asking judges to dismiss ongoing immigration court cases and then arresting people in courthouses to place them into expedited removal—an administrative pathway with fewer protections—effectively truncating hearings where asylum or other relief would be considered [1] [2] [6]. Advocates say this is being used against people who showed up for proceedings, including asylum seekers and green card holders, chilling participation in the legal process [7] [1].
2. Due process claims in court: mixed results but growing judicial resistance
Lawsuits and federal decisions show courts are not uniformly deferring. The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedential position some judges followed, but multiple federal courts have found that practice incorrect and at least one U.S. district court ordered a bond hearing, concluding the agency’s approach was likely unlawful [5]. Litigation challenging courthouse arrests and dismissals is ongoing, with class actions and suits from nonprofit litigants arguing systemic denial of bond hearings and meaningful hearings—claims that federal judges have sometimes accepted and sometimes resisted depending on facts and legal posture [5] [7].
3. How courts evaluate due process claims in immigration proceedings
Circuits review due-process claims with attention to prejudice—plaintiffs must usually show the alleged violation could have affected the outcome of the immigration proceeding—and appellate courts in some circuits review those claims de novo, meaning courts can and do overturn agency decisions when procedural shortcuts deprive a meaningful opportunity to be heard [8]. Legal observers and clinics report increasing use of habeas petitions and federal lawsuits to secure bond hearings or to block expedited-removal practices, and some decisions have enjoined agency practices or ordered individual relief [9] [5].
4. Conditions of detention and broader constitutional concerns
Beyond courtroom procedure, scholars and litigants argue substantive due-process problems flow from detention conditions and lack of enforceable standards; the Harvard Law Review traces a history of deaths, medical neglect, and litigation over detention conditions that feed claims governmental custody can be punitive and constitutionally deficient [3]. Advocacy organizations and NGOs describe ICE policies—indiscriminate detention, blocking release on appeal, and near-zero release rates—as compounding procedural violations into liberty deprivations that federal courts have sometimes found troubling enough to warrant relief [10] [3].
5. The government’s position and limits of available reporting
ICE and DHS frame arrests and removals as lawful enforcement of immigration statutes and note that asylum must be adjudicated by USCIS or immigration courts, not by ICE, implying procedural steps remain available; ICE’s FAQs reiterate its enforcement mandate and the statutory framework for asylum and detention [4]. Reporting and court filings document specific rulings against certain agency practices, but there is not yet a single, definitive Supreme Court ruling described in these sources resolving all the contested tactics—many cases remain active and outcomes are fact-specific [5] [9].
6. Bottom line: repeated patterns, judicial pushback, and an unfinished legal reckoning
The assembled reporting demonstrates repeated agency tactics that advocates and some courts say undermine due process for green card holders and asylum seekers—courthouse arrests, dismissal-into-expedited-removal, denial of bond hearings, and detention conditions are documented and litigated [1] [2] [3]. Federal courts have ruled against these practices in multiple instances and ordered remedies, but relief has been incremental and uneven; the legal battle is active and unresolved across jurisdictions, with major litigation and appeals ongoing [5] [9]. The sources do not provide a single conclusive ruling uniformly condemning all alleged practices nationwide, only a growing body of adverse judicial findings and continuing challenges [5] [8].