A federal appeals court on Thursday allowed the extension of a Biden-era consent decree that limits the use of warrantless immigration arrests, but blocked the release of hundreds of immigrants who had been ordered freed under a lower court ruling.
In a 2–1 decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the continuation of the consent decree but stayed its ruling for 14 days, giving the federal government time to seek review from the Supreme Court of the United States.
The ruling delivered a mixed outcome for both civil rights advocates and the Trump administration. While the court allowed the consent decree to remain in place, it narrowed the definition of what constitutes a “warrantless” arrest and rejected the administration’s claim that all undocumented immigrants are subject to mandatory detention.
Dispute over warrantless arrests
The case stems from a lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security violated a 2022 consent decree restricting immigration officers from making arrests without warrants.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings previously ruled that immigration agents improperly used blank I-200 warrants — filling them out at the scene of an arrest — to bypass the requirement of probable cause. He sided with civil rights groups who argued the practice violated the consent decree.
However, the appeals court pushed back on parts of that ruling, concluding the decree applies only to arrests made without any warrant, including I-200 warrants.
“But, based on this preliminary record, we read the Consent Decree to cover only those individuals whose arrests are effectuated in the absence of any warrant,” Judge John Lee wrote in the majority opinion.
Lee was joined by Judge Doris Pryor. Judge Thomas Kirsch II dissented.
Release order blocked
In November, Judge Cummings ordered the Trump administration to release hundreds of detained immigrants to electronic monitoring, finding they may have been arrested without warrants. His order covered 13 individuals whose arrests both sides agreed were unlawful, along with about 442 others potentially affected.
The appeals court ruled that Cummings improperly certified a class of detainees for release without individualized assessments. As a result, the court said the government would suffer “irreparable harm” if the release order were allowed to stand, effectively keeping those detainees in custody.
Mandatory detention rejected
While limiting the release order, the appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s interpretation that immigration law mandates detention for all undocumented immigrants.
Lee wrote that the administration’s position would “upend decades of practice” by extending mandatory detention beyond individuals apprehended at the border to those already living in the country.
The opinion noted that mandatory detention for all undocumented immigrants only became official policy after an internal memo was issued by ICE leadership in July 2025.
Because of that, the court found the administration is unlikely to prevail on its claim that immigrants arrested without warrants must remain in mandatory detention.
The National Immigrant Justice Center, which represents the plaintiffs, praised that portion of the ruling, calling it the first federal appeals decision to address what it described as DHS’s unlawful interpretation of its detention authority.
Consent decree remains in place
The consent decree will remain in effect while any potential Supreme Court appeal is considered.
Judge Cummings had extended the decree by 118 days into February 2026, matching the length of time DHS unilaterally declared the agreement terminated. Trump administration attorneys argued the judge lacked authority to do so and that the current administration should not be bound by a prior administration’s agreement.
Kirsch agreed in his dissent, writing that democratic governance does not allow one administration to permanently bind future policymakers.
The majority disagreed, concluding the consent decree merely requires compliance with federal law and does not cause the irreparable harm needed to block its enforcement.
“Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion,” Lee wrote, “when finding that Defendants’ substantial non-compliance with the Consent Decree constituted a significant change in circumstances that warranted modification.”