Federal Judge FREES Convicted Illegal Aliens

judge-striking-mallet-at-wooden-table2419159367jpg

A federal judge’s order has put four convicted criminal illegal aliens back on American streets—despite final deportation orders that date back decades.

Quick Take

Judge John deGravelles ordered ICE to release four non-citizens with final removal orders and serious criminal convictions from a high-security unit at Louisiana’s Angola prison.
DHS condemned the ruling as reckless and says it still intends to remove the men, but court-ordered releases can complicate detention and deportation timelines.
The decision fits a broader national pattern of judges scrutinizing ICE detention practices, especially claims of unlawful or indefinite detention.
Key unknown: where the released men are now and whether ICE has re-detained or removed any of them as of early February reporting.

What the Louisiana ruling did—and who was released

U.S. District Judge John deGravelles of the Middle District of Louisiana ordered the Feb. 6, 2026 release of four ICE detainees held at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, widely known as Angola. Reporting on the case identified the men as Ibrahim Ali Mohammed, Luis Gaston-Sanchez, Ricardo Blanco Chomat, and Francisco Rodriguez-Romero—each with final deportation orders and serious criminal convictions, including homicide-related offenses and a child sex crime conviction.

Publicly reported deportation-order dates underscore how long some cases have remained unresolved: Rodriguez-Romero’s order dates to May 30, 1995; Gaston-Sanchez’s to Sept. 24, 2001; Blanco Chomat’s to March 27, 2002; and Mohammed’s to Sept. 5, 2024. The judge’s central rationale, as described in coverage, was that holding the men in ICE custody on a prolonged basis amounted to unlawful indefinite detention under habeas principles.

DHS response: public safety vs. judicial limits on detention

The Department of Homeland Security blasted the decision in unusually blunt terms, warning the releases could endanger Americans and insisting the agency’s mission is to remove criminal illegal aliens. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the releases “inexcusably reckless” and said DHS would still pursue removal. That posture highlights a core tension: the executive branch can prioritize deportations, but federal judges can still restrict detention practices when they find legal defects in how custody is maintained.

From a conservative, law-and-order perspective, the controversy isn’t about whether detainees have rights—it’s about whether the system can reliably keep dangerous offenders off the streets while removal is executed. The reported facts show the government had final removal orders in hand, yet still faced a court ruling that detention could not continue as it had. That mismatch is exactly where public confidence breaks down: Americans expect consequences to follow final orders, not years of procedural limbo.

Why Angola’s “Camp 57” became part of the immigration fight

The Angola detention unit—often referenced as “Camp 57”—became a flashpoint after DHS partnered with Louisiana in September 2025 to expand detention capacity there. Coverage describes Angola as a notoriously tough facility, and its use for immigration detention reflects the Trump administration’s post-2025 emphasis on detaining and removing illegal aliens, particularly those with criminal records. In practice, large-scale detention expansions also increase the number of cases vulnerable to fast-moving habeas litigation.

The record available in the provided research does not include the full text of Judge deGravelles’ order or detailed conditions placed on the releases, which limits what can be said about the court’s precise legal findings. What is clear is the basic sequence: DHS expanded use of a high-security detention site, the four men challenged continued custody, and the court sided with the detainees on the question of ongoing detention legality, ordering them released from ICE custody.

A nationwide pattern: courts pushing back on detention practices

The Louisiana case did not emerge in isolation. Other recent litigation has targeted ICE detention procedures, including cases involving alleged warrantless arrests, consent-decree compliance, and due process claims. The Castañon Nava litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, for example, has drawn attention because courts required more individualized assessments rather than broad detention practices. Separately, reporting from the Pacific Northwest described more than 100 immigrant-detention rulings in 2025 finding due process problems, sometimes resulting in releases.

Politico has also reported on the friction that follows when judges believe ICE is slow-walking or narrowly interpreting release orders, while ICE argues it is balancing enforcement duties with legal constraints. That broader backdrop matters because it suggests the real battleground is becoming procedural: not just who should be removed, but what detention and release standards courts will tolerate while cases move through the system. For voters who demanded secure borders, that procedural fight can determine outcomes.

What happens next—and the unanswered questions Americans should watch

As of early February reporting reflected in the provided research, there were no confirmed public updates showing the four men had been re-arrested or deported after the Feb. 6 order. Fox News also reported the court did not respond to a request for comment. Those gaps matter because public safety concerns rise when high-risk offenders are released without clear public accounting of supervision, location, or subsequent enforcement actions.

The next measurable indicators are straightforward: whether DHS can quickly re-detain or remove the men consistent with the court’s ruling, whether the government appeals or seeks stays in similar cases, and whether Congress responds with clearer statutory rules for detention of criminal illegal aliens with final removal orders. Without that clarity, these disputes will keep turning into courtroom showdowns that leave everyday Americans wondering why “final order” doesn’t actually mean final.